Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Jun 1995

Vol. 455 No. 3

Written Answers - Commercial Development at Dublin Airport.

Martin Cullen

Ceist:

109 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in view of his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995 and in view of the fact that Aer Rianta has a complete monopoly over all commercial development in and around Dublin Airport and no private sector commercial development has taken place in the vicinity of Dublin Airport, if he is concerned that private sector developers are being subjected to unfair competition particularly as Aer Rianta has constantly objected to developers using Biocycle sewage treatment systems to service proposed private sector warehousing development while at the same time Aer Rianta uses the Biocycle system to service its own developments on its lands at Dublin Airport; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12100/95]

Martin Cullen

Ceist:

110 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications arising from his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995, the basis on which it is in the State's interests that Aer Rianta should object to conditions of planning permission which relate specifically to the operation of a particular sewage treatment system, having regard to the fact that this treatment system is currently being operated by Aer Rianta on his lands at Dublin Airport and the fact that the proposed method of operation of this treatment system in the case of the Cargobridge project has already been fully approved by the environmental services department of Fingal County Council which is the statutory sanitary authority for the area and as the proposed method of operation of this treatment system in the Cargobridge project fully satisfies the conditions of use set down in certificate No. 92/0033 issued by the National Standards Authority of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12101/95]

Martin Cullen

Ceist:

111 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications arising from his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995, and in particular his statement that Aer Rianta's objection was based on technical grounds, if his attention has been draw to the fact that no evidence was presented by Aer Rianta in support of the technical grounds it cited despite the fact that a great deal of evidence was presented by the Cargobridge advisers, by the planning and sanitary authorities for the area, and by Biocycle Limited, in support of the Cargobridge proposal; if he will reconsider his decision that Aer Rianta's objection should stand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12102/95]

Martin Cullen

Ceist:

112 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications arising from his reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995, and in particular his statement that the Cargobridge advisers argue a point which is diametrically opposed to the opinion of the Aer Rianta advisers, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the opinion of the Aer Rianta advisers is also diametrically opposed to the submissions made to An Bord Pleanála by Fingal County Council which is the legal and competent sanitary authority for the area; if he will reconsider his decision that Aer Rianta's objection should stand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12103/95]

Martin Cullen

Ceist:

113 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications the representations, if any, made by him or any of his officials to the board members or officials of An Bord Pleanála regarding planning appeals (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12104/95]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113 together. I made my position clear in this matter in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995.

It is not correct that Aer Rianta has a monopoly over all commercial development in and around Dublin Airport. It is not my policy nor that of Aer Rianta to restrict private sector development in the environs of the three State Airports. There are at present ten Industrial Parks around the perimeter of Dublin Airport and a number of private sector developments within the Airport itself.

Aer Rianta has one BIOCYCLE system at Dublin Airport and proposes to instal a second system. I am informed that these two systems are located at remote sites and are for the use of a small number of Aer Rianta staff. The planning permission given by Fingal County Council provided for the installation of seven BIOCYCLE systems on a site of about twelve acres, in a commercial use context.

Aer Rianta, as my agent, did not object to the Cargobridge proposalper se but to specific technical conditions imposed by the planning authority in their planning approval. As I indicated in my reply to Parliamentary Question No. 36 of 21 June 1995, An Bord Pleanála has the technical expertise and, in my opinion, is the best forum to adjudicate in the matter. I assume that the promoters of the project have made their views on the technical aspects of the case referred to in the Deputy's questions known to An Bord Pleanála. My decision to await the outcome of An Bord Pleanála's deliberations in the matter stands. I should add that neither I nor my Department have made any representations to An Bord Pleanála regarding the planning appeals referred to by the Deputy.