The final text of the proposal that clarifies the intervention of municipalities in the construction, expansion or adaptation of an airport was approved in plenary this Friday with votes for PS and Chega.
The text received votes against from the PCP and BE, while the PSD and the Liberal Initiative abstained.
It concerns the final text, presented by the Committee on Economy, Public Works, Planning and Housing, about the bill that clarifies the intervention of municipalities in the construction, expansion or modification of an airport.
With regard to pre-approval of livability, the diploma states that the application for valuation must be accompanied, inter alia, by a statement from the municipal council of the area demonstrating that the area is compatible with the municipal master plan, or, “in the case its implementation affects more than one municipality” with the declaration of the respective municipal councils, except for changes within the aerodrome itself.
In the latest amendment to the ordinance, the same point further establishes that a statement from the Regional Development Coordination Commission (CCDR) is required, except for changes within the aerodrome, which confirms that the deployment area is compatible with the programs and territorial plans applicable, “after to have heard the congregations”.
Alternatively, a CCDR statement identifying those territorial management tools “whose modification or suspension is necessary for reasons of public interest” is requested.
There is also an opinion from the municipal councils of the municipalities affected by the environmental impact or by the “restriction of the right of superficies resulting from the works to be licensed, with the aim of assessing the said effects or limitations”.
The basis for the “threshold rejection” is now the lack of a binding technical opinion, “issued by the competent national meteorological authority, defining the type of compatible meteorological information and, in the pre-assessment procedure for class II to III aerodromes , the lack of favorable advice from the municipal councils.
In addition, with regard to the procedure for prior assessment of the viability of Class IV aerodromes/airports, the lack of a non-binding opinion from the Municipal Councils, “subject to the existence of mere evidence that it was required of them for at least 90 days, which constitutes the presumption of the respective extension”.
Source: DN
