# CE2004084EN.01067801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/678 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/678

---

(2004/C 84 E/0764)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0827/04

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject:   Extension of San Sebastián airport

Subject:

In its reply to Written Questions E-2245/03 and E-2246/03 (1), the Commission states that the Spanish authorities consider the purpose of the San Sebastián airport master plan to be its internal restructuring and there are no plans to extend the runway. The Spanish authorities also insist that the plan does not have the same level of detail as a project, and consequently it is not subject to Community legislation on impact assessment.

1

Nevertheless, the information contained in the master plan shows that:

| — | the purpose of the planned work (parking area, parking platform for aircraft, extension of the terminal building) is to adapt the airport to the increase in air traffic and make it possible for larger aircraft to use the airport (which invariably requires an increase in the size of the runway); |
| --- | --- |

—

the purpose of the planned work (parking area, parking platform for aircraft, extension of the terminal building) is to adapt the airport to the increase in air traffic and make it possible for larger aircraft to use the airport (which invariably requires an increase in the size of the runway);

| — | the work will have an adverse impact on the SCI ES 2120015 and SPA 37 sites given that, as the plan itself acknowledges, it will be necessary to: seal more land, thereby reducing the size of the wetland, with the consequent repercussions on the protected species referred to in Written Question E-1701/02 (2); extend the car-park, which will affect the watercourse that has a direct influence on the ecosystem in which these protected species live; fill in and level off the strip of land at the side of the runway, which will affect the intertidal area adjacent to the SPA, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

the work will have an adverse impact on the SCI ES 2120015 and SPA 37 sites given that, as the plan itself acknowledges, it will be necessary to: seal more land, thereby reducing the size of the wetland, with the consequent repercussions on the protected species referred to in Written Question E-1701/02 (2); extend the car-park, which will affect the watercourse that has a direct influence on the ecosystem in which these protected species live; fill in and level off the strip of land at the side of the runway, which will affect the intertidal area adjacent to the SPA, etc.

2

The Commission:

| — | In view of these facts, can it continue to affirm that the sole purpose of the master plan submitted is to restructure the airport without extending the runway? |
| --- | --- |

—

In view of these facts, can it continue to affirm that the sole purpose of the master plan submitted is to restructure the airport without extending the runway?

| — | Does it not consider that not treating the master plan as an extension project represents an attempt by the Spanish authorities to carry out the work while side-stepping the legislation on impact assessment? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not consider that not treating the master plan as an extension project represents an attempt by the Spanish authorities to carry out the work while side-stepping the legislation on impact assessment?

| — | Does it not believe that, in view of the possible impact on Natura 2000 sites, the legislation which prevails is at all events Article 6 of the Habitats Directive? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does it not believe that, in view of the possible impact on Natura 2000 sites, the legislation which prevails is at all events Article 6 of the Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

(16 April 2004)

As indicated in its answers to Written Questions E-1701/02, E-3417/02 (3), E-2245/03 and E-2246/03 by the Honourable Members, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities to provide complete information on the above-mentioned subject.

3

The complete issue in question was examined, ‘inter alia’, with the Spanish authorities in the framework of the package meeting held on 23 October 2003. The Commission expressed its concerns regarding compliance with the Community Environmental Law applicable to the case.

The national authorities informed the Commission that they have abandoned the idea to extend the airport runway as well as the extension and closure of the parking area foreseen in the airport Master Plan in order not to affect the nearby Natura 2000 sites. Furthermore, the Member State committed itself to carry out a single environmental impact assessment (EIA) on the remaining activities covered by the project implementing the Master Plan. By letter dated 4 December 2003, the national authorities confirmed this information and announced that the EIA is currently in progress.

Since the Spanish authorities have expressed their intention to submit to the Commission the outcome of the environmental assessment procedure, expected by the 2nd quarter of 2004, the Commission will then examine the legal questions arising from this file regarding the full compliance with Community Environmental Law.

---

(1)  OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 230.

1

(2)  OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 213.

2

(3)  OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

3

---