Ireland Is Among The Worst Offenders

Posted on January 31, 2010 | Filed Under Environment, Press Releases, Uncategorized

In an article in today’s Sunday Business Post an article by Niamh Connolly Political Correspondent writes about Ireland’s poor record when it comes to infringing EU environmental laws.

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/ireland-high-among-eu-environmental-offenders-47083.html#mon

The location in which Sligo Airport would build a runway extension on Dorrins Strand is an area designated under EU and Irish Law. The area is protected by the following designations:

Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

Special Protection area (SPA)

Candidate National Heritage Area (cNHA)

Shellfish Water Directive

It is quite astonishing that Sligo County Council have backed this plan because if it ever did get built, Sligo County Council and The Irish Government  could face huge fines from EU Commission for non-compliance with EU Environmental law.  Of course it is not really the Co Co or the Government who would pay such fines. That would be for you the taxpayer.

About this Post
Permalink | Trackback | | Print This Article | Leave a Comment

John MacDermott’s Letter To Sligo Champion re Airport Runway

Posted on January 31, 2010 | Filed Under Environment, Press Releases

The Sligo Champion recently published an article in which it stated that the extension of the runway at Sligo Airport was in everyone’s interest.  John MacDermott countered that view by writing to The Sligo Champion. His letter appears at this link:

http://www.sligochampion.ie/temp/difficult-to-maintain-that-sligo-airport-is-vital-to-the-region-2039587.html

The text of John’s letter is published below :

Sir,

It is not correct to say as suggested in a recent article by Paul Deering that Sligo Airport will be able to cater for larger planes if the proposed extension is built. The runway will remain the same length so bigger planes will not be able to land. The extension is to cater for safety margins on both ends.

It is not correct to say that suggestions to move the airport to a green field site was to satisfy objectors. Moving to a green field site should stand on its own merits or otherwise. If the issue was seriously looked at 10 or 15 years ago then maybe the airport would be in a much stronger position to-day. It is now unlikely to be a viable solution for many years to come if ever.

It is not correct to imply that the only thing preventing the airport building an extension onto Dorrins strand is the existence of a few objectors. The problem for the airport is that Dorrins Strand belongs to the people, is a beautiful tranquil place, has a viable shell fish business and its environment is protected by stringent Irish and European laws. The airport has to overcome the law not the objectors. What does the airport mean to Sligo?

On the positive side it clearly provides a useful function. It is handy for Sligo people to fly to and from Dublin without having the bother of going to Knock. On top of that every time you fly you receive a minimum of 80 euro subsidy from the taxpayer. Understandably this is something people would not like to lose. It also gives some status to Sligo. Finally even though it is not its function it does provide important local jobs.

Clearly then it is a good thing for Sligo. If it is economically viable and does not destroy the environment or public beaches then most reasonable people would support it.

However, as it is getting taxpayers money and is proposing to rob people of their beach and their rights to avail of its amenities then it is reasonable that the issues be looked at in a more hard nosed way. Is it a vital asset to Sligo as is claimed?

This can only be said with any credibility if figures are put forward to back it up. No research has been done or figures published indicating the economic contribution the airport is making to the economy of the region.

In the absence of figures it is more logical to assume that it makes a very small contribution to the economy of the region and also because of good bus and rail links and the proximity of Knock airport it is difficult to maintain that it is vital to the region.

The first hard fact to be faced is that to provide Sligo Airport’s one air service route cost the taxpayer €25 million over the period 1998 to 2007.

With present plans it will cost the taxpayer another €10 million to build the runway extension and ongoing yearly costs of 2.5 to 3 million.

The question must be answered is this good value to the taxpayer?

Subsidising air travel to the region for business people or tourists who are bringing economic wealth to the region makes sense. If these people could use Knock or the rail service just as easily does it make sense to subsidise Sligo airport?

Is it fair to subsidise these people when the vast majority of people in Sligo could not afford to fly even at the subsidised prices.

This issue of whether subsidies are justifiable has to be faced. There is no way it should be avoided at any time but in these difficult economic times it has to be part of the equation when discussing cut backs in other areas.

It is therefore not correct for Mr. Deering and others to assert that it is in every ones interest that the airport would continue in its present subsidised form.

Unless we can get to the stage that the airport makes a substantial economic benefit to the region, and so benefits everyone, then we are using taxpayers money to benefit a very small number of people in Sligo.

Those who have an interest in the development of Sligo Airport should call for a business plan that will make the Airport viable and sustainable into the future. If this was done 10 years ago the airport would not be in the difficult position it is in to-day.

There is no point in having pie in the sky flights of fancy that we might have flights to London some day. If it did not happen in ten years of the Celtic Tiger it will not happen now or in the future without a realistic plan to achieve it.

The other issue that I feel was not correct in Mr. Deering’s article is that the airport needs this extension to survive or to continue to land planes safely. It is a self evident fact that the airport is landing planes safely at the moment. It has only a small restriction in order to do so. It cannot land planes with a full load of 70 passengers but must reduce the numbers to a maximum of 64 per flight.

If Sligo Airport could have an average load of say 60 passengers per flight to and from Dublin (as they are now allowed) then the business would be on the road to being financially viable.

Safety can be maintained without the extension and the lack of the extension is not the factor preventing the airport flying with an economic number of passengers per flight.

The viability of Sligo Airport is determined by factors other than an extension to the runway.

- John Mac Dermott, Chairman of Dorrins and Cummeen Strand Conservation Group

About this Post
Permalink | Trackback | | Print This Article | Leave a Comment

Helen’s Letter To Sligo Champion re Sligo Airport Plans

Posted on January 31, 2010 | Filed Under Uncategorized

In response to an article in the Sligo Champion recently in which the editor made the assertion that the building of a runway extension at the airport would be in everybody’s interest Helen McCauley wrote to the editor.  Her letter was published in Sligo Champion and can be found at this link

http://www.sligochampion.ie/temp/expansion-of-airport-not-in-everyones-interest-2039590.html

The text of her letter is as follows:

Sir

I read with dismay Mr Paul Deering’s report on reasons for us to be optimistic this year in last week’s Champion. His assertion that the expansion of Sligo Airport is in everyone’s interest is completely untrue.

The proposed absolute destruction of a protected area, an area of huge environmental importance, not to mention of great beauty is most definitely not “in everyone’s interest”.

It is not in the interest of the hundreds of people who walk this beach and around the headland each week, those who use this area for recreational purposes, swimming, horseriding, birdwatching and boat moorings. It is not in the interest of the sustainable shellfish industry operating on this strand, nor is in the interest of those people living and holidaying on Coney Island.

It is not in the interest of the taxpayers who are currently subsidising the airport. It is not in the interests of the residents of Strandhill who will be subjected to hundreds of trucks travelling through their village carrying tonnes of stone and infill to the site for at least 12 months.

The proposed extension onto Dorrin’s Strand will not allow the airport to cater for larger aircraft. The Airport currently operates in complete safety under a restricted load of 64 passengers per plane instead of 70.

The airport fails to make any case that justifies the destruction of this protected area. The total subsidy per passenger currently equates to Euo125 per trip or in the case of round trip Euro 250. Those who are opposed to this development are not “anti airport”.

We are opposed to the complete destruction of an area that brings great joy to local residents and visitors to our county. It is our duty as citizens and taxpayers of this country to protect our environment and natural landscape and to ensure that it is there to be enjoyed by many generations to come. Sligo deserves it.

Helen McCauley

About this Post
Permalink | Trackback | | Print This Article | Leave a Comment