Council rejects Dublin Airport passenger cap increase application

Fingal County Council has rejected an application from Dublin Airport Authority (daa) to increase the airport’s annual passenger cap to 36 million, citing significant regulatory failings and inaccuracies in the submission.

In a statement, the Council described the application as “invalid” due to non-compliance with planning and development regulations and deemed its public notices “inadequate and misleading.”

“It is also invalid because the proposed description of the development in the public notices is non-compliant with the relevant regulations and is inadequate and misleading,” the statement read.

The Council expressed concern over the quality of the submission, with a spokesperson noting: “It is a matter of great concern to the Planning Authority that such a significant planning application is invalid.

“Pre-planning is available to assist applicants but did not take place for this application.”

The rejection has sparked a sharp response from the daa, which expressed frustration with the Council’s decision.

In a strongly worded statement, daa described this decision as a “bizarre flip-flop by Fingal County Council”.

“Fingal County Council’s planners twice confirmed the validity of DAA’s ‘no build’ application on 23 December and again on 6 January – yet this evening sent out a media statement saying it was invalid,” the statement said.

“daa lodged this straightforward ‘no build’ application to provide a short-term solution to the planning cap impasse but Fingal County Council refuses to be pragmatic about this issue of national importance, despite allowing for 40 million in its own development plan.

“This ‘Snakes and Ladders’ approach to planning shows why decisions about Dublin Airport should be made at a national level by An Bord Pleanála and not locally by Fingal County Council.”

Following the announcement of the council’s decision, one local representative blamed “incompetence and arrogance” by daa as the only reason the cap on passenger numbers remains at 32m.

While blasting daa’s “incompetence”, Cllr Jimmy Guerin described the decision as “correct.”

“This is not a decision that Fingal necessarily wanted to take but is obliged to because of the basic rules that dictate planning applications,” he said.

“As a member of Fingal County Council I support the proposed increase in the passenger cap to 36m passengers and the continued development of Dublin Airport. 

“Senior management within the DAA seem incapable of submitting a basic application to address the important passenger cap issue.

“Instead the DAA issue statements expressing shock at decisions and then misinform those affected by this issue so as to cover up their incompetence and basic misunderstanding of the planning process. 

“Over five years ago Fingal County Council recognised that the existing passenger cap was a problem and in the local area plan for the airport the members voted in favour of a proposal by the executive to increase the number of passengers from the current figure of 32m to 40m passengers. 

“It took the DAA over 4 years to submit the first application for the increase in passenger numbers which were facilitated by our development and local area plan. 

 “The first application submitted in 2023 was one of the biggest applications ever received by Fingal that included plans for a massive expansion of the whole airport including many new buildings and infrastructure.

“A small part of that application was a proposal to increase passenger numbers.

“When Fingal planners sought additional information to allow them to consider this application properly it took ten months for the DAA to comply with this normal request.”

Cllr Guerin went on to say that at a recent meeting that he attended between senior management of the DAA and some of the elected members of Fingal County Council, daa Chief Executive, Mr Jacobs acknowledged that daa “had made some mistakes in how it managed the application process.”

“It would appear that they have not learned from these mistakes,” he said.

“The number of problems with this current application suggests the DAA do not have the personnel with the skillsets required to ensure that planning applications are in line with both regulations and legislation.

The application was declared invalid as it failed to comply with various articles of the planning regulations 2001.

“It is also invalid because the public notices are non-compliant and described by Fingal planners as inadequate and misleading.”