Future Infrastructure Developments

[Sherburnflyer92]

They've continually said this.

They've also said, and I will take this, that the new proposed nighttime hours (extended by an hour in Morning but it's 6am in summer so that's fine, and 30 minutes at night), should not come into affect until the terminal is built and operational.

 

[CM.]

LBAs new planned terminal just had a mention on look north, apparently pudsey mp stuart andrew says the new terminal and the changes to flying hrs should be two seperate issues and not one proposal, just what planet are these lot on, do they ever look in detail at the plans and realise that for a company to invest 150million in new airport infrastructure they require maximum flying operation! Unbelievable!!

Isn’t he the MP that supports it? And I agree but that’s the BBC for you always spouting cr!p, I never watch BBC for various reasons (I stick to Nat Geo for the interesting aviation programs) as it’s usually rubbish along with most news programs here as they are just “soooooo” negative. As are the news articles as today they have brought the same cr!p about those troubling teens handing their flawed petition. And I wonder if they realise during normal summer times (using Summer 19 as an example) that there were flights that came in during the early hours at 02:00am like my flight from Fuerteventura at the time.

Once we get the approval and the diggers turn up I won’t care what they say as work has finally started! Goodnight all!

 

[White Heather]

Whatever Stuart Andrew thinks, the flying hours were part of the planning application, not separate, and they were approved . End of.

He and others are clearly trying to influence RJ into calling this in, because if he does, a likely outcome is approval for the terminal, but rejection of the either the change to daytime flying hours ( despite every other airport operating them!), or a passenger cap below the required 7m p.a, or both, in which case the terminal won't happen as the business case is shot.

There is a good reason why the hours were included in the application. The scheme is not financially viable without them. It seems Stuart Andrew hasn't bothered to read the application or he would know that.

 

[Wardair166]

I really do despair with the people supposedly representing and supporting the development of Yorkshire. It really is no surprise that the transport infrastructure in West Yorkshire is so backward.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Its fine discussing this amongst ourselves but it wont change anything 'preaching to the converted'.

You need to contact your local councillors and MPs and make your views known.

There must be plenty members in Mr Andrews' constituency so just go for it.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Sadly however @LBAYORKIE for us both we have a useless green communist/extreme left socialist as our MP who on paper appeared to be a moderate left wing Labour MP. It falls on deaf ears. And he's go the ear of Tracy Brabin.

 

[CM.]

Sadly however @LBAYORKIE for us both we have a useless green communist/extreme left socialist as our MP who on paper appeared to be a moderate left wing Labour MP. It falls on deaf ears. And he's go the ear of Tracy Brabin.

I’m guessing that your local MP is the worst one in Leeds being Alex Sobel? Good luck with getting a decent response of him he will only jump on the environmental bandwagon.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Personally I dont think doing nothing is an option. Politicians surgeries are good places to get your points across, as are politicians facebook pages.

 

[lbaspotter]

Stansted Airport has won its planning inquiry battle against Uttlesford District Council and secured permission for up to 43 million passengers a year. This Maybe good sign as it will set a precedent for Leeds/Bradford Airport's own planning application...

Hefty costs bill for council as Stansted Airport wins planning appeal

Stansted operator MAG wins planning battle with Uttlesford District Council and permission for up to 43 million passengers a year.

www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk

 

[Aviador]

Stansted Airport has won its planning inquiry battle against Uttlesford District Council and secured permission for up to 43 million passengers a year. This Maybe good sign as it will set a precedent for Leeds/Bradford Airport's own planning application...

Hefty costs bill for council as Stansted Airport wins planning appeal

Stansted operator MAG wins planning battle with Uttlesford District Council and permission for up to 43 million passengers a year.

www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk

And just for the benefit of GALBA trolls here on Forums4airports, here is a quote:-

"Whilst there would be a limited degree of harm arising in respect of air quality and carbon emissions, these matters are far outweighed by the benefits of the proposal and do not come close to indicating a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. No other material considerations have been identified that would materially alter this balance.”​

So Stansted Airport expanding to 43m passengers annually is legally regarded as only having a "limited" degree of harm so far as carbon emissions and air quality are concerned. This was the same outcome as the independent report comprised for Leeds City Council with respects to the Leeds Bradford Airport new terminal plans. That's compelling evidence supporting the Leeds Bradford Airport terminal plans. So if that's the legal advise moving from 28mppa to 43mppa (an additional 15mppa) then it really does make the case in favour of LBAs new terminal look good.

 

[jfy1999]

Funnily enough, I was thinking about the outcomes of all the various airport expansion plans today. It would make a mockery of “levelling up” if a London airport gets the green light for massive growth while Bristol, Leeds and Southampton’s more modest plans are refused.

The only potential issue i can see is that while Stansted has demonstrated in the planning process that its passenger growth can be achieved without increasing the number of flights, i don’t know if all the others have done so.

 

[White Heather]

And of course, RJ is now considering whether or not to call in Southampton Airports runway approval, following the demands made by GALBAs Southern chums.
This decision should very much be on his mind when making his decision re LBA and SOU

 

[Aviador]

Funnily enough, I was thinking about the outcomes of all the various airport expansion plans today. It would make a mockery of “levelling up” if a London airport gets the green light for massive growth while Bristol, Leeds and Southampton’s more modest plans are refused.

The only potential issue i can see is that while Stansted has demonstrated in the planning process that its passenger growth can be achieved without increasing the number of flights, i don’t know if all the others have done so.

I don't think LBA has said there will be no more flights. The extra flights proposed for LBA are significantly less than the fairy-tale figures banded about by GALBA (Extinction Rebellion)

 

[Aviador]

With a bit of luck, the Secretary of State has been waiting for an outcome to this case as it throws weight behind validating the LBA application and hopefully bringing about a positive outcome.

 

[CM.]

With a bit of luck, the Secretary of State has been waiting for an outcome to this case as it throws weight behind validating the LBA application bringing about a positive outcome.

Does that mean he’s looking towards approving? I really hope so as this is desperately needed and most people think this a great idea for our city. I can’t wait for when he give ok as I wonder what the media will put up about it. Probably nothing positive as usual. But let’s hope for the best and that he makes the correct decision because if he does it will be the only good thing he’s done during this pandemic.

 

[CM.]

And of course, RJ is now considering whether or not to call in Southampton Airports runway approval, following the demands made by GALBAs Southern chums.
This decision should very much be on his mind when making his decision re LBA and SOU

I personally think that if any public enquiry was to happen with SOU he should make those environmentalists pay every penny for it. As they are wetting there pants desperately for it. As well as the costs after it when they would hopefully approve it.

I’m sick and tired of hearing negatives about airports and emissions and expansion. Airports probably need this to recover from the pandemic and aviation is already on the path to being greener. There’s lots of talk about electric planes in the future and the aircraft that are commonly used today are more fuel efficient meaning they give out less emissions an example is the A350, A320neo and 787 but there just a few to mention. I think these green lickers need to appriciate that rather than moan constantly.

 

[Aviador]

Does that mean he’s looking towards approving? I really hope so as this is desperately needed and most people think this a great idea for our city. I can’t wait for when he give ok as I wonder what the media will put up about it. Probably nothing positive as usual. But let’s hope for the best ands that makes the correct decision because if he does it will be the only good thing he’s done during this pandemic.

We can only speculate but the outcome of the Stansted case only adds weight to a positive outcome for LBA. It would be somewhat ridiculous if the SoS called the LBA application in on the grounds of national implications when the LBA plans only propose an additional 3mppa over 2019 values. The Stansted airport plans amount to 5 times the growth anticipated at LBA. If 5 times the growth can be only considered as being "limited" impact then one fifth of that must be no more than negligible.

 

[CM.]

We can only speculate but the outcome of the Stansted case only adds weight to a positive outcome for LBA. It would be somewhat ridiculous if the SoS called the LBA application in on the grounds of national implications when the LBA plans only propose an additional 3mppa over 2019 values. The Stansted airport plans amount to 5 times the growth anticipated at LBA. If 5 times the growth can be only considered as being "limited" impact then one fifth of that must be no more than negligible.

Definitely agree. Let’s hope we have the same success here at LBA.

 

[ls27]

There would be good grounds for an appeal if LBA was refused and Stansted went through.

 

[rmac]

Is there still an appeal even if the SofS rules against any development, and if there was an appeal by LBA and it was lost would the airport need to pay.
Conversely if he ruled in favour could GALBA appeal and again if they lost would they need to pay, just like the local authority in the Stansted case.
Whatever happens I cannot see LCC appealing, correct?