An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

An Bord Pleanala Reference PL 21.231918

DEVELOPMENT: Extension to coast guard hanger, new hangar for small aircraft, extension to existing apron, new porta cabins and site works at Airport, Killas Praybrone, . Co. Sligo

PLANNING APPLICATION

Planning Authority: Sligo County Council

Planning Authority Reg. No: 08/712

Applicant: Sligo North West Airport Company Ltd

Application Type: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: To Grant Permission

APPEAL

Appellants: Dorrins & Cummeen Strand Conservation Group An Tasice

Type of Appeal: Third Party

Observers: Usher Aviation Ltd Sligo Aero Club Staff of Sligo Airport CHC Ireland Ltd

Date of Inspection: February 13 th , 2009

Inspector: Breda Gannon

Appendix 1: Annotated Photographs Site Plan/Extracts from Development Plan

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 16 INTRODUCTION

This is a Third Party appeal against the decision by Sligo County Council to grant permission for the development.

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The site is located at Sligo Airport on the western extremity of the Coolera Peninsula. The airport, which is accessed via the R 277 lies to the north of Strandhill and c 8 km west of Sligo city. It comprises one runway strip that extends along an east-west axis adjacent to the northern site boundary. To the south of the runway there are a number of ancillary operational buildings including the terminal building, existing hangars, fuel shed and fire station. The R 277 also provides access to Sligo Airport Business Park located to the south of the airport complex. The terrain surrounding the airport is generally flat and exposed and is dominated by grassland vegetation with isolated forestry plantations to the north east and south west. Dorrins Strand and Cummeen Strand/ Bay and lie to the north/ north east of the site and Sligo Bay lies to the west.

PLANNING APPLICATION

The development is described as follows in the public notices submitted with the application: -

‘An extension to the existing coast guard (CHC Ireland LTD) hangar (504.31 m2), construct new hangar for small aircraft (1,112m2), an extension to existing apron and install new porta cabins and all associated site works at Sligo Airport’.

The development will take place to the west and southwest of the existing terminal building. The new hangar and the hangar extension will be constructed to the east and north of the existing hangar facilities, will have a ridge height of 12.9m and will be finished in Kinspan cladding to match existing structures. The apron extension (4091 m2) will be accommodated to the east of the site.

PLANNING HISTORY

1. 01/1056 – Permission granted for a steel portaframed hangar to accommodate aircraft on the airport site.

PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORTS

The Planning Officer’s report of 28/10/08 concludes that the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of both the Standhill LAP and the Sligo County Development Plan. The subject site is not subject to any sensitivity designations and is not located within any area, which is designated for environmental or archaeological protection. The site is located in close proximity to and overlaps slightly with a number of adjoining environmental designations, however, it is considered that the proposed development will have no negative impact on these designations. The application site overlaps with the Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) p NHA and the ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 16 Cummeen Strand/ Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay) c SAC. The site comprises part of an existing hardstand area and disturbed ground and in this context the proposed development will have no impact on the existing habitat.

The design and layout of the development is considered acceptable and will have no negative impact on visual or residential amenity at this location. It will cluster with the existing airport hangar buildings and the industrial park to the south. Issues of surface water disposal, effluent disposal and access have been adequately addressed as witnessed by the positive reports.

The Development Planning Unit report of 23/9/08 raised no objection to the development. It was noted that the proposed development adjoins existing hangars and development that is part of the curtilage of the airport. The proposed development is in keeping with the structures currently in place and is in line with the objectives of the LAP. It was noted that there have been two previous permissions on the site for the construction of a steel portaframed hangar to accommodate aircraft within the boundary of the airport (01/1054) and for the construction of a hangar damaged by storm (99/78).

The Water Services report of 20/10/08 stated that further information was required in relation to surface water. It was later confirmed in a report dated 30/10/08 that this could be addressed by way of condition.

The Environment Report of 30/9/07 and the Area Engineer’s report of 23/9/08 raised no objection to the development.

PRESCRIBED BODIES

The Development Applications Unit of the DoEHLG in their report of 7/10/08 requested that archaeological monitoring of ground works be carried out. An Taisce in their report of 28/10/08 stated that as the development would facilitate additional airport capacity and therefore runway use and land based traffic generation, an EIS was required. The proposal has been lodged concurrently with an application with an EIS for a runway extension (08/632) and an application without an EIS for carparking (08/591). The proposal with car parking constitutes more piecemeal development without the integrated assessment required under the EIA Directive.

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

The planning authority decided to grant permission for the development subject to 7 conditions:-

Condition No 1 – Development to be carried out in accordance with plans and particulars submitted on September 9 th , 2008.

Condition No 2 – Finished floor level not to exceed 4.51 m

Condition No 3 – External finishes of the buildings to consist of ‘Kingspan’ cladding or similar, to details to be agreed.

Condition No 4 – Archaeological monitoring.

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 16 Condition No 5 – Service lines and cables to be placed underground .

Condition No 6– Surface water requirements. Calculations of both surface hydraulic designs to be provided and agreed with the planning authority prior to the commencement of the development.

Condition No 7 – Longitudinal sections through proposed surface water drainage system to be submitted for agreement prior to commencement of the development.

APPEAL SUBMISSIONS

3rd PARTY APPEAL

An Taisce

 The application is one of a number of individual planning applications which has been lodged without environmental impact assessment and which individually and cumulatively accommodate airport expansion. Planning application 08/632 is an application for a runway extension which is a major development with large scale and highly problematic impact to extend the runway into the SAC/SPA designated area of Sligo Bay and will significantly increase airport capacity. Planning Ref 08/591 is for car parking and has been lodged without EIA.  The manner in which this application and the application for the car park have been separated from the runway extension application is both inexplicable and unjustified. It involves project splitting as defined by the European Court of Justice i.e. the lodging of applications which are sub threshold under the EIA Directive but which cumulatively have an environmental impact.  The applications, individually and cumulatively will expand the capacity of the airport both in terms of the number of planes that will use the facility and in relation to car parking, would increase the land-based access capacity.  The development should be subject to EIA and should be the subject of a single integrated planning application. The application should be invalidated and the applicant directed to submit a revised application to include all development proposed for the airport which would involve an increase in a capacity, including aircraft hangar, apron capacity and land-based and transport capacity.  Consideration of any separate applications without EIA for individual elements of the airport expansion is premature pending the resolution of the airport runway extension. Even if the runway extension were to be granted, it will inevitable face legal challenge at EU level, both under the EIA directive and Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.  The proposal is premature pending resolution of the future of Sligo airport. There are an excessive number of regional airports, which is no longer sustainable either environmentally in terms of the generation of emissions, and economically.  Regional airport development and the provision of unsustainable subsidised services between regional airports and subject to PSO obligation are adding unsustainably to aviation emissions. Given the lack of strategic need for aviation expansion on the scale proposed in Sligo and its adverse environmental impact, it is likely that the runway extension will be refused. It is further likely that the PSO subsidy will be withdrawn, resulting in its closure as an commercial airport. This would not prevent the continued operation of the airport by the Coastguard or for private planes licensed to use the existing runway capacity. However, it is likely that

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 16 the use of privately owned planes will significantly decline in the immediate future as a result of the level of carbon taxation required.

Dorrins and Cummeen Strand Conservation Group

 Three applications have been lodged with Sligo County Council and all are for proposals to enlarge or expand airport facilities.  All applications are controversial as they either directly impact on designated sites or as in the case of the subject application is immediately adjacent to four designated areas and potentially impacts on all.  Notwithstanding the policies of the Sligo County Development Plan and the Strandhill LAP, the planning authority were wrong for planning and legal reasons to grant permission for the development.  The absence of an EIS in the case of the subject application is in breach of EC and Irish law. All three applications should have been considered simultaneously and in relation to each other and to consider the cumulative impacts having regard to the environmental and heritage sensitivity of the area.  The sole reason for the submission of separate application was to avoid the submission of an EIS. Any such strategy is bound to fall in the present case, since Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires cumulative effects to be considered and does not look to thresholds in terms of individual applications.  The planning authority was incorrect and premature in granting permission for one application while the other two associated projects remain undecided.  Applying the Waddenzee decision to the present case, the applicant should clearly have submitted an ‘appropriate assessment’ (EIS) in respect of the application. The Habitats Directive adopts a precautionary approach and following Waddenzee requires national authorities to satisfy themselves, if there is to be no ‘appropriate assessment’ that the possibility of significant effects can be excluded on the basis of objective information. In this case there is no information to allow the Council to reach a conclusion on this issue.  Even if an ‘appropriate assessment’ had been carried out, the Council would have been entitled to grant permission under Article 6(3) only if they had reached the conclusion that ‘ no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of adverse effects’ on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites in question. In this case there is no ‘appropriate assessment’ and it would seem no basis for the Council to reach a conclusion under Article 6(3).  There was no assessment completed to ascertain the impacts this development would have on the environment or the designated areas either by itself or in conjunction with the other two projects. To grant permission is therefore contrary to the provision of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and hence of regulation 27(3) of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, as amended.  Sligo County Council failed to assess adequately the impact of wastewater disposal. The planning authority approach to addressing the missing information by way of conditions attached to the permission is a critical mistake. Permission is being sought for 1,616 m2 of buildings and 4,091m2 of paved area for expanded apron. Together with the existing buildings and paved area, this constitutes a very large area (c.14,000 –16,000 m2) and run-off from this area has to drain somewhere. This should have been evaluated before a decision was made to grant permission for the development. Questions arise as to whether de-icing agents or other contaminants will be used that could wash down onto the apron and drain away as surface water and whether there is potential for the leaching out of contaminants in the asphalt over time which could impact on a shellfish farming area. Such issues would appear

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 16 to be directly relevant to the need for an ‘appropriate assessment’ under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.  The planning authority would appear to be acting on the false premise that the hangars are used for parking/storage of aircraft only. The Manager of the Airport confirmed in a report in the Sligo Champion dated 29/10/08 that the hangars are necessary ‘to accommodate the growing aircraft maintenance business which is going from strength to strength’. A maintenance operation usually involves the use of solvents, lubricants, detergents and other specialised materials and equipment. There is no information on the quantities of such materials or the equipment used and how much is stored at any one time. What protection is in place in case of accidental spillage? Given the precautionary nature of the Waddenzee decision, this would appear a clear trigger for an ‘appropriate assessment’ .  It is a major concern that there is an open drain that drains surface water from the airport grounds directly eastwards and flows into the channel at Dorrins Strand. Dorrins Strand is a designated SPA, and cSAC, including the channel where shellfish farming is carried out. The entire area is a proposed ‘Water Body’ to be protected under the Shellfish Waters Directive (2006/113/EC).  Sligo County Council and Sligo County Borough hold 42.2% of the shares in the airport company. This share ownership gives the County Council and/ or the County Manager a good deal of control over the applicant company’s affairs. It is difficult to see how there was independence in the planning decision made. There is a clear appearance of bias in this case and nothing has been done by the Council to address this.  In conclusion, multiple planning applications were made when a single comprehensive application would have been better practice. Sufficient weight was not given to compliance with the Habitats Directive or that shellfish farming is being carried out in Sligo Bay, a proposed Water Body under the Shellfish Waters Directive. The applicant did not describe the project correctly in that they failed to point out that an aircraft maintenance operation is being carried out. This led to the planners underestimating the importance of surface water drainage and wastewater treatment and thereby granting permission on a false premise.

OBSERVERS

1. Usher Aviation Ireland

Usher Aviation Ireland commenced trading at Sligo Airport in 2007. In March 2008 a contract was signed with Cirrus Design making User Aviation the only Cirrus Authorised Service Centre in Ireland. Cirrus is a US manufacturer of the most technologically advanced light aircraft in the world at the present time. A contract has also been signed with Cessna, commercially the world’s largest light aircraft manufacturer, to become a Cessna Authorised Service Centre. These contracts provide an incredible platform to move the company’s business forward and continue to provide employment in the area and stimulate additional business for the huge asset to the region that Sligo airport happens to be. It is imperative that the company has access to additional hanger space for the storage of aircraft pre and post maintenance.

If permission is not granted for the development Usher Aviation will be forced to relocate to another airport, which is not something the company wishes to contemplate.

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 16 2. Sligo Aero Club

Sligo Aeronautical Club celebrated 30 years in operation at Sligo Airport in 2008. The club provides facilities for a membership of about 90, consisting of approximately 60 students pilots and the remainder qualified private pilots. In 1978 Sligo Aero Club provided one hangar that is still in use. As more aircraft were purchased the need for hangar space became critical and in 2002 the Airport Co. provided additional space. There are currently 16 aircraft and 1 helicopter permanently based at Sligo airport . The helicopter and 13 of the aircraft are generally squeezed into the existing larger hangar. The other large hangar is used by CHC Coastguard Helicopter and its necessary support facilities. A considerable amount of interleaving is required to accommodate the number of aircraft in the hangar. It can only be achieved by placing high wing and low wing aircraft side by side so that the wings can overlap where possible. This required a pre- planned approach and can result in very inefficient operations when several aircraft have to be moved in order to get a particular aircraft out, and then return the others to the hangar.

There are very valuable aircraft currently being parked in a hangar that is wholly inadequate in size and this presents risks for the safety of these aircraft due to the potential for damage when manoeuvring in a very tight space. The weather conditions at Sligo airport makes it very unsuitable for outside parking and storing of light aircraft. A number of aircraft have been lost in the past due to storm damage and there are continual risks, additional maintenance and pre flight checking necessary as a result of weather related conditions. This has serious implications for a flight training organisation in terms of operating with students and low experience pilots –e.g. water ingress to fuel systems and pilot systems as well as general cold start issues due to temperature and dampness.

The additional hangar space is urgently required regardless of other plans for airport upgrades. The necessary hangarage for light aircraft will result in increased safety and operational benefits for students and pilots.

3. Staff of Sligo Airport

Currently 30 staff are employed directly by the airport, many of them living in the Strandhill area. The airport has operated successfully for the last 25 years. Along with providing scheduled services many private and corporate aircraft use the airport. The Coastguard Helicopter Search and Rescue Service is based at Sligo Airport and provides an essential service for land based and marine communities. It is also used extensively by National and European air ambulance operators and is available at short notice for organ transplant flights. It supports frequent Department of Defence and Department of Justice air operations which are conducted by the Irish Air Corps.

There is no spare capacity to accommodate an additional helicopter if so required by the helicopter Search and Rescue service, or to accommodate other private or corporate aircraft including air ambulances. Outside parking is not a suitable option due to weather effects.

Additional hangarage space is an essential requirement for Usher Aviation if it is to maintain and increase its business at Sligo Airport. At present 5 staff are employed but it is projected that if additional hangar space can be provided there would be a 100% increase in business and jobs by mid 2009. If the additional hangar space cannot be

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 16 provided, the company has made it clear that they will relocate with a loss of jobs and much needed business for the airport and for Sligo.

4. CHC Ireland Ltd

CHC Ireland operates a contractual Search and Rescue service for the Irish Coastguard. The Sligo base enjoys a reasonable level of service from the airport operator but has been in discussions for an extension of the currently leased hangar for some time. An extension to the hangar would alow CHC to place a standby helicopter in Sligo airport which would allow the immediate replacement of an unserviceable helicopter with a second aircraft already on base. This would ensure a more seamless Search and Rescue operation not only for the Irish Coastguard but also for the people of the Northwest of Ireland.

RESPONSES TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The Planning Authority

 The current application is a stand alone project and could proceed with or without the granting of permission for the proposed airport extension. In this context the current application is not considered to constitute project splitting.  As a stand alone project which is based upon immediate need for the expansion of the coastguard service and for other potential commercial purposes, it is not considered that the proposal is premature.  It is not considered that the proposal will have a negative impact on the adjoining designates. The site is located adjacent to but outside the adjoining environmental designations.  Wastewater is dealt with by way of condition.  The planning authority has made an independent and un-biased decision in relation to this application.

First Party Sligo airport is a major infrastructure for the whole north west area and is recognised as such in the national policy, regional planning guidelines and the development plan. Its future is critical to the development of the Sligo area and to the future of Sligo as a nationally important ‘Gateway’, a fundamental element of the National Spatial Strategy. Its future is essential to the economy of the area, to employment, tourism and job creation. The proposed development, as envisaged in the application is a relatively minor addition to the existing facility, but nonetheless an important one. Despite its importance, the scale of the works are small and far below EIS thresholds. Some of the works, such as the addition to the apron are actually exempt under Class 32 of the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001. It is a relatively non-controversial development, taking place entirely within the bounds of the existing airport and entirely outside of the Natura 2000 sites and other designations in the vicinity. The proposal is entirely in conformity with the County Development Plan, the Regional Planning Guidelines and the Strandhill Local Area Plan. The following summarises the response to the appeal received from An Tasice .

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 16 Project Splitting  The extent of this development is quite minor and not of a scale that would require an EIS.  An EIS was submitted with the runway application (08/632) due to the fact that it infringed on the Natura 2000 Sites. The hangar proposal does not as is evident from the attached map (Appendix B).  The application is one of three concurrent applications. The main development on the airport’s agenda has been the improvements and reconfiguration of the runway for safety reasons. The other applications arose separately. One was the need for additional disabled parking which led to the application to extend the car park (08/591). The second was to provide for light airplanes and SAR helicopters which led to the hangar application. The three arise for entirely separate reasons and are not mutually interdependent.  The appeal seeks to argue that all three will facilitate expansion of the airport. This is incorrect. The proposal relating to the runway safety issues principally addresses a long-standing requirement of the and Department of Transport to correct safety deficiencies and bring the runway into compliance with the aviation standards to which Ireland has committed by international treaty. The work proposed does not expand the operational capability of the airport in any way and will not permit larger aircraft to use the airport than are being operated into Sligo Airport by Aer Arann at present. The hangar application will merely serve to provide improved accommodation for activities that already take place at the airport, whilst the car park expansion is related to provision of disabled parking. The three proposals do not require to be part of the same application.  The three proposals are ‘sub threshold’ and if they were combined and not ‘split’ they would still be sub threshold. Prematurity

 There is nothing to support the contention that the development is premature pending a decision on the future of Irish airports or to support the argument that there are too many regional airports and that the number is not environmentally sustainable.  It is national, regional and local policy to support the development and future of Sligo airport. The National Spatial Strategy, National Development Plan, Regional Planning Guidelines and County Development Plan all support the development of the airport as an essential element in the development of Sligo Gateway and as a means of access, which is critical to the local and regional economy.  The Department of Transport’s current policy and its allocation of €86m to the regional airports specifically addresses development of the six regional airports, placing highest priority on underpinning “investment in essential infrastructure and equipment upgrades, including better fire fighting equipment, the installation of new Instrument Landing Systems and other navigational aids and the provision of Runway End Safety Areas at a number of airports”.  There is nothing premature about the proposal. An Taisce seek to use the appeal to change policy on the subject, which is not the appropriate place for such a debate. It is inappropriate for An Taisce to attempt to undermine the national policy of the Government towards transportation and regional economic development through the local authority planning process.  Government policy is clearly in favour of this proposal and to refuse permission on the grounds put forward by An Taisce would be contrary to government policy,

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 16 contrary to the Regional Planning Guidelines and contrary to the County Development Plan.  It is not true that the proposal is premature pending the resolution of the runway safety application. The purpose of this application is primarily to facilitate the SAR helicopters, which do not need the runway improvements (other than the instrument landing system. Both the helicopter and small aircraft can land on a grass strip.  It is claimed that Public Service Obligation subsidies are likely to be lost and that the runway application is likely to be blocked by legal decisions at EU level. There is no basis for these claims and the PSO subsidies go to the airlines and not to the airport. The appeal goes on to state that this would prevent the continued operation of the airport for use by the coastguard or other private planes. This is what the application facilitates, both of which are independent of the runway configuration.

The following summarises the appeal by Dorrins & Cummeen Strand Conservation Group

 The site of this application is entirely within the bounds of the existing airport, adjoins existing hangars and apron and is not part of any of the habitat designations.  It is stated that the car park application is the subject of a request for further information, part of which is a request for a second EIS. Item 1 of the further information request seeks the submission of an “appropriate assessment of the potential impact of the development on the Candidate SAC/NHA. This does not have to comprise and EIS. It is understood that the reason that an ‘appropriate assessment’ arose in the case of the car park is that it may be inside the SAC/SPA. (The word may is used as there is a dispute about the exact boundary of the SAC/SPA-see attached map in Appendix B). There is no dispute about the hangars as they are outside the designated lands.  Whilst it is contended that there should be a requirement for an EIS for this application also and that the application is in breach of EU and Irish law, there is no requirement for an EIS for a hangar. The threshold in the case of airport development is a runway of 800 m.  It is argued that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC was not met in this case and reference is made to the ‘Waddenzee Decision’ of the European Court of Justice.  The proposal is located within an established airport and is not positioned inside any of the designated sites, NRA, SAC, SPA or Ramsar. The Waddenzee case was an extensive, commercial, mechanical operation over the surface of an area inside the SPA.  The application was referred to the DoEHLG and they had no comment to make on the proposal other than on archaeology.  It is contended that the impact of surface water disposal has not been properly assessed by the planning authority. Rainwater and surface water run-off from the airport buildings and apron are all provided with drainage that ultimately is carried by an open drain. There is no capacity constraint in the open drainage system serving the terminal building, hangars and apron areas to accommodate any additional flow of run-off water from the hangar and apron development. The proposed development will not create the need for a new drainage system as it will only increase the volume of water carried by the existing system, which has been in place since the airport was first constructed.  Issues have been raised about contaminants entering the surface water system, specifically the possible use of de-icing fluids. The airport has little need for the use of de-icing fluids and when required these are applied to the runway which is ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 16 drained separately to the terminal buildings and apron. This is an on-going activity and is not one that will arise as a result of the present application.  Whilst the primary purpose of the hangars is to provide covered storage, an element of aircraft maintenance is carried out in the existing hangars. The activities to which the hangar application is addressed are no different to those that are carried out presently. It is not correct, or appropriate to convey the notion that the type of low level maintenance carried out in the hangars would be of a heavy nature or a dirty operation. While engine oil and hydraulic fluid replenishment and replacement is carried out, the nature of aircraft maintenance, as opposed to vehicle maintenance, is that it is a clinically clean activity, as it has to be for reasons of safety, and iscarried out to exacting prescribed standards.  Questions have arisen whether there is any danger of contaminating materials used in the hangars being spilled or ultimately impacting on the protected areas outside the airport. The airport has its own approved safety procedures to ensure safe use of any hazardous materials at any place in the airport, including aircraft refuelling operations, and to guard against and prevent accidental spillages from affecting the safety of operational personnel or contaminating the groundwater. These procedures have been in place for the past three years are effective.  It is true that the County Council is a major shareholder in the airport company. The Council is also the planning authority and is required by law to deal with the application. There is therefore no impropriety by the Council.

The response is accompanied by a number of documents including a Storm Wster Design Report and Water Sample Results, to which I draw the attention of the Board

Policy Context

The operative development plan is the Sligo County Development Plan 2005-2011. Reference is made to Sligo Airport in various sections of the Plan. It is a stated aim of the Plan to

‘Promote and support the development and use of Sligo Regional Airport so as to ensure a better level and frequency of service and enhance Sligo’s accessibility to tourists and businesses, both nationally and internationally’ (Section 2.2 5(h))

Section 8.1.5 recognises the strategic importance of the airport

‘ is served by Sligo Regional and Knock International Airport, which are of strategic importance as a means of access to the County and are critical to the local and regional economy’ It is an objective ( 8.1.5.1) of the Plan to

‘Promote and support improved access to and expansion of Sligo Regional and Knock International Airport, so as to secure a better level and frequency of service and promote Sligo’s accessibility to tourists and businesses, both nationally and internationally’.

The Strandhill Local Area Plan 2003-2009 also supports the airport and its expansion.

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 16 ‘In the context of Strandhill, full support will be given to the continued development of Sligo Regional Airport, while airport related manufacturing, warehousing and service industry will be encouraged within the airport environs’. (Section 1.4)

‘It is an objective to promote and facilitate the further development of the Airport’ (Section 3.3.12)

‘To facilitate, when necessary, the extension of the Airport’s runway, by modifying the development limit to allow for the extension of the runway, subject to environmental, heritage and coastal considerations’ (Section 3.2 Goal II).

The site is located in an area zoned ‘airport and related uses’ ( Map 8 )

ASSESSMENT

The main issue that arises for determination by the Board with respect to this appeal relates to the impact of the development on designated sites in the locality. Other issues relate to questions of project splitting, prematurity and surface water drainage.

Impacts on designated sites in the locality. The appropriateness of permitting the proposed development in a sensitive area of designated sites forms the substantive issue in the appeals made by both An Taisce and the Dorrins & Cummeen Strand Conservation Group. The airport complex is located in an area of valuable natural heritage sites, that support a diversity of habitats and a wide range of flora and fauna. The Cummeen Stand / Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay), c SAC, pNHA abuts the airport complex to the north, west and south. I note from the Site Synopsis (Site Code 000627) that this site is of high conservation interest supporting several Annex 1 habitats (i.e. estuary and intertidal sand and mud flats/ and embryonic, Marram and fixed dunes) and several species listed in Annex 11. Cummeen Strand SPA extends westwards from Sligo towards Coney Island encompassing the Sligo Harbour area. The site is of high ornithological importance (Site Code 004035) supporting important concentrations of wintering wildfowl and three Annex 1 species. The sensitivity of the coastal area to the north/ north east of the airport is compounded by the proposed designation of Sligo Bay as a shellfish water and the inclusion of Cummeen Strand in a designated Ramsar site (Ramsar Site No 842).

Whilst the sensitivity of the area surrounding the airport is acknowledged, the apron and hangar extensions will be located within the airport footprint on an area of disturbed ground to the east of the site, part of which is used for stockpiled material (Photograph 2 & 3). The development will be positioned located adjacent to an existing cluster of buildings and outside of the boundaries of each of the designated areas listed above. The proposed development will not impinge on designated habitats or species of flora and fauna within the designated areas and will not impact directly on their integrity or conservation status.

It is conceivable that the development could result in indirect impacts on designated sites through the release of contaminants into the surface water network. Storm water run-off from the existing hangars and apron discharges to an open drain located to the east of the site (Photograph No 5). The drain flows west to east before discharging into the sea at Dorrins Stand, a highly sensitive area. According to the Storm Water Design ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 16 Report this drain also accommodates storm water discharges from the rest of the airport including the terminal building and terminal apron. Discharges from the run way are stated to be accommodated in a separate drainage system.

There is no evidence that existing operations on the site result in the discharge of pollutants or contaminants to the surface water system. The water sample included in the report (Appendix 3) does not suggest that existing operations pose a threat to water quality. At the time of inspection, I did observe that the water and vegetation in the drain was clear, with just a very slight film of oil at the western end of the open drain. This was confined to the area immediately adjacent to the outlet to the drain and its limited extent and the otherwise clear nature of the drain would suggest that it is not indicative of persistent discharges.

The information presented in the application and the appeal states that the new hangar space will be used primarily for storage, but it is acknowledged that routine maintenance of the aircraft and SAR helicopter will be carried out to comply with current health and safety legislation. The Board will note that there is an element of contradiction between the content of the Storm Water Design Report ( Pg 4) and the main text of the First Party response ( Pg 14) in relation to the waste arising from maintenance operations. The former states that there is no ‘liquid’ waste while the latter acknowledges that engine oil and hydraulic fluid replenishment and replacement is carried out from the time to time. It is best practice that such waste oils/fluids are collected and stored in suitable receptacles and disposed of appropriately. There is no evidence to suggest that any such contaminants are being discharged into the surface water system. Provided best practise procedures are followed and there is no discharge to the surface water system, a risk of contamination of the open drain or the coastline arising from the proposed development will not arise. The provision of hydro-carbon interception on the storm water drain downstream of the hangars and apron as proposed will provide additional protection against accidental spillages and mitigate potential impacts on designated sites in the vicinity.

It is contended by the Dorrins & Cummeen Strand Conservation Group that the application should have been accompanied by an ‘appropriate assessment’ to assess its impacts on the designated sites in the area. The appellants’ draw on the judgement in the ‘Waddenzee’ case to support this contention. Under the European Court of Justice decision (Case C-127/02), the requirement for an ‘appropriate assessment’ is conditional on the plan/project being likely to have a significant effect on designated site(s). According to the judgement a risk of significant effects exists if it cannot be excluded on the basis of objective information. It is argued by the appellants’ that no such information is available to allow such a conclusion to be reached. I do not share the views of the appellants’ in this regard. Whilst the judgement does not preclude sub threshold development from the requirement to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’, there is no evidence, in my opinion, to suggest that the extension of the hangar and apron accommodation will adversely affect the integrity or cause deterioration or significant disturbance of the designated sites. The development will essentially involve a continuation of the existing activities on the site, which have not been shown to have any negative impacts on designated sites in the locality. I note that the Environment Section and the DoEHLG raised no objection to the development. Whilst I would conclude on the basis of the information submitted that the probability or risk of significant effects is low, the Board must satisfy itself beyond reasonable doubt and based on objective scientific knowledge that the development will not affect ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 16 the integrity of the designated sites. Should the Board consider that reasonable doubt exists, it is open to it to revert back to the applicant on points of further information.

Project splitting

The subject application is one of three applications submitted with respect to the airport site. The other proposals relate to an extension of the existing car park and safety improvement works to the runway. These two proposals are more controversial and have a greater potential to impact directly on the natural heritage sites in the area. The runway extension is a major development which will involve the reclamation of approximately 5 ha of land on Dorrin’s Strand in Sligo Harbour including works to the channel and the installation of a new sub surface drainage system etc. These works will be carried out within the designated area and have the potential to significantly impact on the integrity of the c SAC, p NHA and cause deterioration of habitats and disturbance to birds within the designated SPA. Although the development is sub threshold, it is correctly subject to EIA due to its infringement on the designated sites. I note from the First Party submission that the planning authority adopted the precautionary approach with respect to the car park extension and sought an ‘appropriate assessment’ due to confusion with respect to the exact boundaries of the c SAC/pNHA and the fact that the development may be located within the designated site.

Whilst I agree with An Taisce that the submission of one integrated application for the entire development would have been better practise, it is my opinion that the proposed development is of a relatively minor nature within the existing airport complex. It is not located within, nor does it directly abut any of the Natura 2000 sites. As noted in the preceding section of this report, the potential for impacts from this proposal whether considered in isolation or in combination with the other proposed developments on the site is considered to be negligible.

Prematurity

It is argued by An Taisce that the proposed development is premature pending the resolution of the future of Sligo Airport and pending a decision on the proposed runway extension.

The issues raised with respect to decisions on the future of Irish airports and their sustainability both environmentally and economically are clearly beyond the scope of this appeal. I do note that prevailing Government policy, to which the Board is obliged to have regard, supports the continued development of the regional airports including financial investment for essential infrastructure. The importance of access to regional airports such as Sligo Airport and their continued development is emphasised at national, regional and local level through the medium of the National Development Plan 2007-2013, the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020, the Regional Planning Guidelines for the Border Area, the Sligo County Development Plan 2005-2011 and the Strandhill Local Area Plan 2005. The development, as proposed, is therefore considered acceptable in principle.

It is perceived by both appellants that the additional apron/hangar accommodation is required to facilitate the expansion of the airport and that the proposed development is premature pending a decision on the runway application. I have no reason to doubt, as contended by the First Party, that the additional accommodation arises due to ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 16 deficiencies in existing hangar space. It seems entirely reasonable, in my opinion, that additional indoor storage space be provided for a stand-by helicopter to improve the overall efficiency and reliability of the SAR helicopter service, in the interests of the public at large. It would also appear reasonable that the extension of Hanger 2 be permitted on the basis that it is clearly obvious on the ground (Photograph No 4) that its limited capacity is incapable of accommodating the existing light aircraft based at the airport without serious manoeuvring difficulties in a very tight space resulting in inefficient operations. I accept as stated by the First Party that neither the helicopters or the light aircraft are independent of runway configuration and accordingly the development cannot reasonable be considered to be premature.

Surface water drainage It has been clarified in the First Party response that surface water discharges are to the drain to the east of the site. The requirements of the Water and Waste Water Services Section have been addressed in the Storm Water Design Report included with the submission. submitted were included A Development Contribution is not levied as the development will not require a connection to the water mains supply or wastewater facilities.

RECOMMENDATION

In light of the above assessment, I recommend that permission be granted for the development.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to the location of the site within Sligo Airport, the zoning objectives of the Strandhill Local Area Plan 2003-2009 for the area ‘to provide for airport and related uses’, and the location of the development outside the designated Natura 2000 sites in the locality, it is considered that subject to the conditions set out below the proposed development will not result in significant effects on the integrity or conservation status of the designated sites in the area and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

CONDITIONS

1. The finished floor levels of the hangars shall not exceed 4.51 m as proposed.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

2. The external finishes of the hangars shall match the external finishes of the existing structures in terms of colours and materials used.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

3. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical, , telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site.

Reason: In the interest of orderly development and the visual amenities of the area. ______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 16

4. Drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services.

Reason: In the interest of public health and to ensure a proper standard of development.

5. Any waste oils/lubricants associated with light aircraft maintenance shall be collected and stored in suitable receptacles on site prior to final disposal. The storage and final disposal arrangements for such materials shall be agreed in writing with the planning authority prior to the commencement of the development.

Reason : To ensure a proper standard of development and to prevent water pollution.

6. The developer shall facilitate the planning authority in the archaeological appraisal of the site and in preserving and recording or otherwise protecting archaeological materials or features, which may exist within the site. In this regard the developer shall:-

(a) notify the planning authority in writing at least four weeks prior to the commencement of any sub surface works ( including hydrological and geotechnical investigations ) relating to the proposed development, and

(b) employ a suitably qualified archaeologist who shall monitor all site investigation excavation and other excavation works, and

The assessment shall address the following issues:-

(i) the nature and location of any archaeological material on the site, and

(ii) the impact of the proposed development on such archaeological material. Prior to the commencement of development, a report containing the results of the assessment shall be submitted to the planning authority. Arising from this assessment, the developer shall agree with the planning authority details regarding any future archaeological requirements (including, if necessary, archaeological excavation) prior to commencement of construction works.

In default of agreement of any of these requirements, the matter shall be determined by An Bord Pleanala.

Reason: In order to conserve the archaeological potential of the site and to secure the preservation of ant remains which may exist within the site

Breda Gannon Inspectorate March 12 th , 2009.

______PL21.231918 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 16