Did Fingal just tell An Bord Pleanála it didn’t know what it was doing?
In 2007 An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the North Runway, with conditions. One of them said which runways to use, and why: “in the interest of the protection of the amenities of the surrounding area”.
The Environmental Impact Statement behind it named the places it meant. The North Runway would be the main take-off runway, because that “minimises the over-flight of highly populated areas such as Portmarnock”. Another condition listed the schools to be soundproofed, by name. One of them is Portmarnock Community School.
So the permission knew where the planes were going. That was the point of it.
In August 2022 the runway opened, and the planes turned right after take-off, over thousands of people who had never had a flight path before. They complained to Fingal County Council, the planning authority. The law says what happens next. If a complaint isn’t “vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation”, the council must send a warning letter.
On 21 September 2022 Fingal sent one to daa. Its own letter, on its own letterhead, listing nine things it said might be wrong. Number three: “Aircraft flight paths are not operating in accordance with the permitted flight paths”.
Permitted flight paths. Fingal’s words. Remember them.
Four weeks later daa wrote back. The permission, it said, never granted planning permission for flight paths, “and so the reference to ‘permitted’ flight paths is inaccurate”. The routes in the EIS were only “indicative”. In the same letter daa admitted the planes were turning “closer to the Airport than anticipated by daa’s noise modelling work”. It called it “a temporary issue”.
The law says a council must decide “as expeditiously as possible”, with the “objective” of a decision “within 12 weeks of the issue of a warning letter”.
Twelve weeks. Fingal took 208.
Along the way it told the Ombudsman the file was “of a highly complex and technical nature” needing consultants, experts and specialists. It said it would “endeavour” to decide within six months. Seven weeks later it wrote to us. No six months. Just “reasonable endeavours” to decide “as expediently as possible”, and it would get back to us “in due course”.
The law says expeditiously, which means quickly. Expediently means whenever it suits.
In September 2026, as the six months ran out, Fingal’s Senior Planner signed a report. Seventeen pages of highly complex, highly technical work. No mention of a consultant, an expert or a specialist.
It starts by explaining what it’s about. “Representations allege”, it says, that flight paths are breaching the permission. Representations. Other people. Complainants.
Then it goes through the warning letter, point by point, and answers each one. On the conditions: “there is no basis for the same”. On flight paths: “the North Runway Permission does not regulate flight paths”.
Hang on. Who wrote “permitted flight paths”? Fingal did, on its own letterhead. Who decided the complaints weren’t without substance? Fingal did. That’s the legal test for sending the letter at all.
Four years on, it’s somebody else’s idea. It wasn’t us, it was the complainants. They made us write it. A clear case of BSE: Blame Somebody Else. (Story 6 has another.)
And the answer it gives them is daa’s, down to the word “indicative”.
How did it get there? Partly by noticing that the conditions don’t contain the words “flight path”. No words, no rule. So “any deviation from flight paths as assessed in the application or as previously existing does not comprise a breach of that permission”.
Any deviation. No breach.
But the conditions still protect people, says the report. They “aim to address and mitigate potential noise impacts, including through the preferential use of runways”. So you protect a town 9 km away by choosing which runway the planes take off from. And once they’re off the ground, they can go wherever they like. Which town, exactly, is that protecting?
By the report’s logic, the experts at An Bord Pleanála wrote conditions to protect the people around the runway and issued permission for the concrete and the timetable, but not for where the planes go. They got their own permission wrong. And who is saying so? Fingal, the local council, whose decisions the appeals board hears. It’s like a District Court judge ruling that the High Court didn’t understand its own judgment.
The report is careful to note the runways are used the way the conditions say, on the strength of “data and information provided by DAA”. So the conditions that protect no one are being honoured. Good to know.
In a footnote, the report mentions that Fingal is separately investigating whether the runway is being used at night when a condition says it mustn’t be. So the permission can tell planes when they may fly. It just can’t tell them where. Okay then!
The conclusion? Fingal “has established, following investigation, that no unauthorised development has been or is being carried out”. All of it, established. Except the two investigations still open, which it set aside for later.
Either way, Ireland loses, and it has been here before (story 13 has that one).
The Chief Executive’s Order adopting all this was signed on 22 September, just after the six months ran out. Two days later Fingal emailed to say the file was closed, without mentioning the Order. We got the Order and the report a week later, because we asked. Fingal’s reasonable endeavours, in due course.
So, here’s where we’ve landed. In 2022 Fingal read the permission and wrote to daa about “permitted flight paths”. daa replied that there was no such thing. Four years later Fingal agreed, and answered its own letter as if a stranger had sent it.
Either what Fingal writes in a letter means something, or it doesn’t. It hasn’t said which.
Sources
- An Bord Pleanála, decision granting permission for the North Runway at Dublin Airport, ref PL06F.217429 (Fingal ref F04A/1755), 29 August 2007, with its conditions: condition 3 (preferential use of runways, and its reason) and condition 6 (noise insulation of named schools, including Portmarnock Community School). Fingal County Council planning file F04A/1755: https://planning.agileapplications.ie/fingal/application-details/37968
- daa (then Dublin Airport Authority), Dublin Airport Northern Parallel Runway Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Mouchel Parkman, December 2004, section 16.1.4.3 (the main take-off runway and Portmarnock) and section 7.4.2.7 (Portmarnock “approximately 9 km” from the runway). Lodged with planning application F04A/1755 on Fingal County Council’s planning file (link above).
- Planning and Development Act 2000, sections 152 (warning letters) and 153 (decision on enforcement, including the 12-week objective). Revised Acts: https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2000/act/30/revised/en/html
- Fingal County Council, Warning Letter to daa under section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, enforcement ref ENF 22/166B, 21 September 2022. NRTG holds a copy.
- daa, letter to Fingal County Council in reply to the warning letter, 19 October 2022. Released to NRTG under AIE request 2631 (daa), 10 September 2026.
- Office of the Ombudsman, decision on NRTG’s complaint about Fingal County Council’s handling of the enforcement file, ref OMB-158504-Q7T9Q4, 19 March 2026, recording the Council’s description of the file and its undertaking on a decision within six months. NRTG holds a copy.
- Fingal County Council, Planning Enforcement, email to complainants on file ENF 22/166, including NRTG, 7 May 2026. NRTG holds a copy.
- Fingal County Council, Senior Planner’s report, “Informing a ‘decision on enforcement’ under Section 153 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended)”, enforcement ref ENF22/166B, 18 September 2026 (17 pages). Sent to NRTG by Fingal County Council on 29 September 2026 at NRTG’s request; NRTG holds a copy.
- Fingal County Council, Chief Executive’s Order PENF/0193/2026 under section 153 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, not to issue an enforcement notice, 22 September 2026. Sent to NRTG by Fingal County Council on 29 September 2026 at NRTG’s request; NRTG holds a copy.
- Fingal County Council, Planning and Development Department, email to complainants closing enforcement file ENF22/166B, 24 September 2026. NRTG holds a copy.