Future Infrastructure Developments

[Aviador]

Just another quick observation ive made about people of Yorkshire thinking DSA should be the airport of choice (LOL) at present they only have 2 airlines operating from there? TUI & WIZZ (a weekly BOJ by BH also) but that is it. No dig at DSA, but LBA still has a healthy choice of airlines compared to other airports which is a positive thing in this climate & important destinations BHD, BFS, AMS, CDG etc which DSA does not have. I have no qualms with Doncaster expanding, s

I have no qualms with Doncaster airport expanding. Yorkshire is so grossly underserved the area desperately needs better air connections with the world. The airport in Doncaster will serve the South Yorkshire region really well if it is allowed to. As for Leeds and Bradford we need to get LBA serving the region it was built for and that's West Yorkshire. It simply isn't acceptable for Leeds or Sheffield to accept Manchester airport in Cheshire as the sole provider of South and West Yorkshire's aviation needs. It's absolutely mad to think cities the size of Leeds and Sheffield are so underserved by air.

 

[Coathanger16]

It's absolutely mad to think cities the size of Leeds and Sheffield are so underserved by air.

Whilst it's undoubtedly the case that many UK cities are underserved by their airports, the main issue is overlapping catchment areas. It's an issue that affects not just the UK but airports & cities all over the world.

To benchmark off the size of Manchester and how many passengers MAN serves, by similar ratio:
LBA would be handling 20.5mppa
BHX 28mppa
NCL 8.9mppa
GLA 11mppa
DSA 9.7mppa

By the same ratio
BRS would be handling 80% of what it does
EDI 40%
London airports 66%

Whilst the likes of NCL and GLA are achievable, the rest would only happen by a massive reallocation of passengers, the size of which would only be possible by government intervention.

Once again, the age old adage of "use it or lose it" comes into play. If everybody in West Yorkshire flew out of LBA regardless of where their destination was and regardless of how many connections they would have to make, firstly passenger levels would be higher, and secondly more airlines would serve more routes from the airport.

The issue is getting that to happen. If you spend more time on your stopover from LBA than you would spend travelling to MAN, and if the latter is cheaper, its very difficult to convince someone to fly from LBA instead.

 

[A400]

The problem is though we hear so much about the environment these days. I’d of thought more people would support the new terminal as it’s greener than the current one and would make less car Journeys to Manchester Airport.
And if given time the airport can persuade new airlines to fly out of LBA. And good advertising and getting the message across about the improvements might persuade people to use LBA rather than travelling further to other Uk airports.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Leeds/Greater Leeds/Yorkshire clearly has the potential to be similar economic powerhouse to Manchester. The thing that lets it down @Coathanger16 is incompetent and useless leadership from sh*t Labour councillors which from 1980 has controlled the council for a total of 35 years out of the 42. Not only that it has some of the most idiotic, brainless, and useless, Labour politicians known to man.

They are not worth the combined basic salary of £400,000k let alone the expenses and everything else. Every single one of them should be kicked out of office as they don't serve the interest of the public they serve the interest of the green communist agenda which seems to have taken over the city.

Like Labour councillors and the council leadership of Leeds they lack, common sense, vision and intelligence. And yes I've, in an email to to the council leadership about some other issue put that very last sentence to have my conservative councillor tell me he couldn't of put it himself.

 

[Coathanger16]

I’d of thought more people would support the new terminal as it’s greener than the current one

I'm not a regular LBA forumer (BHX is my local), but from what I can gather, those opposed to the new terminal believe it will lead to an increase in flights vs what is currently "allowed". The airport has stated the increase to 7mppa was approved when the extension to the existing terminal was approved.

I've yet to see an independent body weigh in on what "cap" is currently in place.

 

[White Heather]

I'm not a regular LBA forumer (BHX is my local), but from what I can gather, those opposed to the new terminal believe it will lead to an increase in flights vs what is currently "allowed". The airport has stated the increase to 7mppa was approved when the extension to the existing terminal was approved.

I've yet to see an independent body weigh in on what "cap" is currently in place.

That's because there is no cap at LBA. They only limit is what the current terminal can cope with.

 

[Coathanger16]

That's because there is no cap at LBA. They only limit is what the current terminal can cope with.

As I tried to say before, supporters say there's no cap, opposition says there is, hence my comment about an independent body clarifying.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

As I tried to say before, supporters say there's no cap, opposition says there is, hence my comment about an independent body clarifying.

You are right and this is a point I have made in the past, they can't both be right. No doubt the public enquiry will resolve this matter once and for all.

 

[White Heather]

You are right and this is a point I have made in the past, they can't both be right. No doubt the public enquiry will resolve this matter once and for all.

No independent body needs to resolve anything. There is no planning limit on passenger numbers. End of. The opposition keep referring to a limit of 5m and that is just a misrepresentation to suit their own purposes. They are basing this on the fact that when LBA hits 5m ok pax it needs to agree Section 106 payments with the Council. It does NOT mean the council can refuse or cap the passengers at 5m, nor would they want to, as their published policy remains to support the development of the airport. Hence they just approved a new terminal capable of handling 7m per year.

Just because GALBA misrepresent facts doesn't mean that someone has to independently clarify anything, because it's all there in the planning application and at the time, the Planning Officer confirmed there is no passenger cap.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

No independent body needs to resolve anything. There is no planning limit on passenger numbers. End of. The opposition keep referring to a limit of 5m and that is just a misrepresentation to suit their own purposes. They are basing this on the fact that when LBA hits 5m ok pax it needs to agree Section 106 payments with the Council. It does NOT mean the council can refuse or cap the passengers at 5m, nor would they want to, as their published policy remains to support the development of the airport. Hence they just approved a new terminal capable of handling 7m per year.

Just because GALBA misrepresent facts doesn't mean that someone has to independently clarify anything, because it's all there in the planning application and at the time, the Planning Officer confirmed there is no passenger cap.

Its about time an impartial but qualified person made it clear that the S106s will not prevent an increase to 7m and all objection to the current planning application will achieve is to deny the peole of Yorkshire a decent terminal building. As theres going to be a public enquiry its important the public are fully aware of the situation.

 

[michael]

Its about time an impartial but qualified person made it clear that the S106s will not prevent an increase to 7m and all objection to the current planning application will achieve is to deny the peole of Yorkshire a decent terminal building. As theres going to be a public enquiry its important the public are fully aware of the situation.

If my experience of public enquiries is anything to go by ( and I've had the Yorkshire Dales National Park to contend with) the enquiry inspectors will have all the correct facts in front of them and will have had for some time to get an understanding of the issues before the proceedings commence. Given that the terminal has already been given the green light from Leeds City Council which took into account environmental factors and there is no sustainable argument against it (the inspectors won't accept a 'not in my back yard' argument as that has no legal standing) I'd like to think that the result of the public enquiry should be quite heavily skewed in favour of the new terminal. I'd be very very surprised if it went against. However, everything crossable will be very firmly crossed at the time!!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I fully agree with you but the opposition are adamant that there is a way to prevent growth beyond 5m enshrined in the conditions applied to the planning application. I dont think they would have had the same level of support from the public if the public had known the truth yet no one seems prepared to definitively state/confirm the facts.
Its very possible that the opposition will use the enquiry as a platform to make arguments to change the terms of reference for this and future airport planning applications. Not sure if this can happen retrospectively but I am still adamant that the airport should be actively winning the hearts and minds of the public and doing nothing is definitely not going to change/ positively influence their perceptions.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

The opposition as a bunch of brain dead toasters (deliberate). They are happy to sell our nation down the pan, with a huge £3/4 trillion price tag for net zero, but don’t want it scrutinising. Not scrutinise any of the actual “climate change” data neither.

Labour are not for the working class. They are green communists.

 

[White Heather]

I fully agree with you but the opposition are adamant that there is a way to prevent growth beyond 5m enshrined in the conditions applied to the planning application. I dont think they would have had the same level of support from the public if the public had known the truth yet no one seems prepared to definitively state/confirm the facts.
Its very possible that the opposition will use the enquiry as a platform to make arguments to change the terms of reference for this and future airport planning applications. Not sure if this can happen retrospectively but I am still adamant that the airport should be actively winning the hearts and minds of the public and doing nothing is definitely not going to change/ positively influence their perceptions.

Why not write to the airport CEO then and tell him that? There's not much we can do here. It's obvious that the airport take the view that they are not prepared to get onto a debate with the likes of GALBA nor constantly have to clarify facts to counter their claims. The people that matter, and make the decisions, will know the true facts and will not be swayed by nonsensical arguments put about by anti airport groups. They have heard it all before at every other public inquiry.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I have faith in the Public Enquiry process. My concern is that there will be a groundswell of public opposition based on mis-information which could have consequences beyond the public enquiry.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

What is interesting is since this decision has been made, the short stay car park which was in full use, alongside the longer stay further down white house lane has now all be cordoned off. Ready for the original plan which has been approved by the council and ready to go.

But you know the idiots in opposition are just a bunch of useless idiots. Roll on Labour coming to canvas for my vote. I am longing for that day.

 

[Statto]

I think this has been posted before, but this is the only reference in the S106 legal agreement to 5M passengers. It's not even about contributions, it's about an obligation that airport has to submit another planning application in the future. It’s obviously written in very precise legal language but the key part is the bit that says …for such further development at the airport requiring express planning permission as would be necessary to facilitate an annual passenger throughput in excess of 5 mppa

This clause is now tagged to the extension at the Eastern End, so further development means any expansion over and above those plans. And express planning permission, means it only relates to any work that requires planning permission.

So, lets imagine the Eastern End extension is built and the airport gets to 6 mppa. They are not in breach of this condition because they did not require any further development to achieve that.

Or, they built the Eastern End and then knock down some walls in the existing terminal, or repurpose some space to increase overall capacity. They are not in breach as that work should not require express planning permission.

GALBAs argument was to try and suggest it says, the airport is limited to 5 mppa and the airport needs planning permission to exceed that limit. But thats not what it says. The precision of the words matter. People can hope, think they say something else, but they are what they are. It should also be said that at airports that do have a legally binding passenger cap, there is understandably much much more detail and precision about how those caps work, how they are measured etc (a bit like LBAs own night flying quota).

View attachment 25170

 

[White Heather]

What is interesting is since this decision has been made, the short stay car park which was in full use, alongside the longer stay further down white house lane has now all be cordoned off. Ready for the original plan which has been approved by the council and ready to go.

But you know the idiots in opposition are just a bunch of useless idiots. Roll on Labour coming to canvas for my vote. I am longing for that day.

I noticed too that the area that would be occupied by the terminal extension is now devoid of vehicles and looks ripe for the builders to move in at some point. Let's hope so.

 

[Easy289]

Just passed the area. Couple of diggers now parked up

 

[752]

I mean the airport seemed confident to await further decision for the new terminal, meaning they could be very confident in the plans/ it still getting approved. maybe they're cornering the area off just in case it gets rejected and before the car parks get busier with the summer season ahead so they can start work instantly on the old plans if required.