Airport terminal backers in court for documents

The backers of a proposed new terminal at Dublin Airport have asked the High Court to order Aer Rianta and the Minister for Public…

The backers of a proposed new terminal at Dublin Airport have asked the High Court to order Aer Rianta and the Minister for Public Enterprise to produce reports dealing with the airport's future requirements and expansion.

Huntstown Air Park Ltd, which wants to develop a new terminal at Cloghran, adjoining the airport, has been given permission by the court to apply for a judicial review of an oral hearing before An Bord Pleanala.

That hearing followed the refusal of Fingal County Council to grant Huntstown outline planning permission for the development. The oral hearing before a planning inspector has not yet concluded.

At the High Court yesterday lawyers for Huntstown sought discovery of a number of reports and documents. Aer Rianta, which operates the airport, said certain reports in its possession were confidential.

READ MORE

Aer Rianta envisaged the development of a second terminal in 15 or 20 years, the court was told.

The proposals were outlined in a letter written in 1996 by the then company secretary, Mr John Burke, who wrote of plans to develop the present terminal site.

Mr Burke alleged that the Huntstown development would significantly interfere with the implementation of Aer Rianta expansion plans. He claimed the Huntstown site was between an existing runway and one which was proposed to be constructed within the next 10 years.

In another letter read to the court, Mr Alan Dukes TD, who was minister for transport in May 1997, claimed the location of the proposed Huntstown development would cause operational problems at Dublin Airport.

Mr Dukes wrote that his decision had not been determined by any principled opposition to separate terminal operations and he had not arrived at a definitive position.

In the event of a decision to proceed with such a development, he said, it would be necessary to pursue a competitive public process designed to "find the most suitable private-sector interests, as opposed to dealing exclusively from the outset with any one such interest".

In an affidavit, Mr Charles Kelly, solicitor for Huntstown, said consultancy reports prepared for Aer Rianta were relevant to the judicial review as they concerned advice received by Aer Rianta and the Minister for Public Enterprise.

In the letter from Mr Burke, which was addressed to Fingal County Council, he said the airport provided full-time employment for 8,085 people and, directly and indirectly, sustained 40,000 jobs.

The passenger throughput was eight million in 1995, and the forecast was for 14 million by 2,005. Aer Rianta had plans for the development of the present terminal site to accommodate traffic growth up to the middle of the next decade.

Two studies were undertaken in 1995, Mr Burke wrote. Plans were in place to spend £96 million over the next five years on new terminal extensions. Further facilities could be provided within the present complex for up to 20 million passengers a year. By 2015, a new site at the airport could provide for a further 20 million passengers.

A second study concluded that improvements would facilitate aircraft movement until 2007 and after that the construction of a new parallel runway north of the existing one would provide significant additional capacity.

Mr Burke said the Huntstown proposal would result in duplication of services, such as customs, immigration and fire and security. The granting permission for the development would conflict with Government aviation policy.

Opposing the claim for production of the documents, An Bord Pleanala said it did not have the power to order their production.

If Huntstown, during the appeal before An Bord Pleanala, formed the opinion that the reports were necessary, it was open to it to make a request under 1992 legislation.

Aer Rianta claimed the documents were not necessary or relevant for the purpose of enabling An Bord Pleanala to decide, while counsel for the Minister for Public Enterprise claimed An Bord Pleanala had no power to require the production of the reports.

The hearing continues.