Route Development & Rumours

[paully]

Appreciate that, but why then is the council quoting conflicting info to the BBC?

Conflicting info from the BBC????......Now there's a first...

 

[leedslad]

As far as I'm aware, the Section 106 agreements relating to the 2009 planning approval won't apply, because that scheme never went ahead, being replaced by the 2017 scheme which is currently being constructed and which, no doubt has it's own Section 106 requirements attached to it. As far as I am aware, they do not require planning consent to exceed 4.5m passengers, and that has been confirmed by both the airport and a planning officer attending a Consultative meeting in the past.

But the 2009 permission is explicitly mentioned in the 2017 document which I posted?... Why would they reference it if it did not apply?

 

[White Heather]

But the 2009 permission is explicitly mentioned in the 2017 document which I posted?... Why would they reference it if it did not apply?

I've just looked at the planning consent and the latest one does say the Section 106 agreements from the 2009 scheme are to be carried forward to this scheme, so given what the planning officer and airport have said it's all rather confusing. I'm sure though that someone has clarified previously that planning approval is not needed for passengers above 4.5m unless associated building works are needed. Hopefully someone can shed light in this once and for all but meantime, I can feel an email to the airport coming on as this is an issue that just keeps on coming up. We may well reach 4.5m passengers next year so this is now a current matter, not just one for the future.

But, having just read the planning approval Section 106, it seems pretty clear to me that the reference is to future development required to facilitate up to 5m passengers and as no such development is required which requires planning consent, that requirement may not apply.

I'll provide an update if I get a response from LBA......j

 

[leedslad]

My feeling is that they consider the extension under construction to have satisfied the S106 agreement in that it enables pax to reach 5m. However it would be good for the airport to confirm their understanding.

 

[White Heather]

My feeling is that they consider the extension under construction to have satisfied the S106 agreement in that it enables pax to reach 5m. However it would be good for the airport to confirm their understanding.

I have emailed the airport just now and asked for clarification..

 

[Cookridge resident]

I find it difficult to believe that the airport will be able to attract "proper" Mid. East airlines without a cargo terminal. Why would they want to fly in without this added revenue when MAN is just over the hill?
I accept that it's not impossible, but i find it HIGHLY unlikely.

 

[Snackbar]

I have emailed the airport just now and asked for clarification..

For info the Councils planning policy is stated in SP12 of the local plan…subject to those conditions the Council planning team will be supportive of the airports plans. Members of the planning panel can override this but it opens up further challenge.
I seem to recollect this issue being discussed at the planning meeting when the new terminal plans were discussed and the city planners said there was confusion and that if required the Council would have to seek legal advice - in the end this wasn’t required as the plans were supported by the planning panel. It does though show even the Councils own planning team aren’t sure!!

 

[White Heather]

Whilst awaiting a reply from LBA I'm just going through my notes taken at previous meetings.

In 24/9/20, CEO Hywell Rees stated that the January 2019 approval given did allow for 7m passengers per year. Therefore the ' new' terminal scheme was designed to meet that number too.

At the same meeting Charles Johnson stated that if the new terminal wasn't approved, LBA does have approval for expansion up to 7m passengers via the previously approved extension scheme which is currently underway.

At the meeting dated 24/2/21, the new CEO, Vincent Hodder stated that the airport ' does NOT require approval to increase passenger numbers beyond 4.5m' in response to a specific question. He stated there are ' no restrictions other than those arising from the airport's infrastructure'.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I find it difficult to believe that the airport will be able to attract "proper" Mid. East airlines without a cargo terminal. Why would they want to fly in without this added revenue when MAN is just over the hill?
I accept that it's not impossible, but i find it HIGHLY unlikely.

If we get narrow bodied aircraft there wont be any cargo.

 

[White Heather]

If we get narrow bodied aircraft there wont be any cargo.

It's clear the airport are talking about aircraft such as the A321 XLR so yes, narrow bodied. Apart from that, currently they are reluctant to use wide bodied aircraft until such time as the runway repairs, (which include replacing the concrete squares and ensuring the ground underneath is stable), are completed. So we are unlikely to see wide body ops at LBA for a while yet.

I have a reply from LBA confirming that the BBC comment was them reporting what they who shall not be named claim to be the case, but that the airport are very comfortable from a legal perspective that there are no restrictions or passenger cap.

 

[leedslad]

It's clear the airport are talking about aircraft such as the A321 XLR so yes, narrow bodied. Apart from that, currently they are reluctant to use wide bodied aircraft until such time as the runway repairs, (which include replacing the concrete squares and ensuring the ground underneath is stable), are completed. So we are unlikely to see wide body ops at LBA for a while yet.

I have a reply from LBA confirming that the BBC comment was them reporting what they who shall not be named claim to be the case, but that the airport are very comfortable from a legal perspective that there are no restrictions or passenger cap.

How incredibly strange that the BBC is reporting the nimby group interpretation as if it were a direct quote from the council...

 

[BCFC]

I find it difficult to believe that the airport will be able to attract "proper" Mid. East airlines without a cargo terminal. Why would they want to fly in without this added revenue when MAN is just over the hill?
I accept that it's not impossible, but i find it HIGHLY unlikely.

No cargo no LBA for any long haul airline…its their bread and butter.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

No cargo no LBA for any long haul airline…its their bread and butter.

Its only a factor for wide body operators.

 

[Jerry]

the Saudis have also recently mentioned a route into NCL so obviously they are seeing potential….

That's no doubt due to the Saudis now owning Newcastle United and Newcastle is isolated enough for routes like that to possibly work. LBA has MAN not that far away. Only realistic possibility for LBA is probably Dubai. Unless Saudi Arabia buy Leeds United!

 

[White Heather]

How incredibly strange that the BBC is reporting the nimby group interpretation as if it were a direct quote from the council...

Not really as the BBC has repeatedly given that group the time and opportunity to have their say whether what they say is correct or not. They never seem to challenge them or verify their claims. I wonder why??? And I've little doubt that there may be some within the council who will have more than a passing connection with the group .

 

[Len Fish]

“Leeds City Council said when the airport exceeded four-and-a-half million passengers a year it would liaise with it to obtain planning consent to enable expansion to five million passengers.” The sentence doesn’t even make sense, who or what is the it and it is the it who would apply for planning permission not the Council. Typically appalling YEP reporting.

 

[Snackbar]

That's no doubt due to the Saudis now owning Newcastle United and Newcastle is isolated enough for routes like that to possibly work. LBA has MAN not that far away. Only realistic possibility for LBA is probably Dubai. Unless Saudi Arabia buy Leeds United!

Watch this space……

 

[lbaspotter]

From what I’ve been told by several people I think a Dubai route will happen sooner rather than later.

It won’t be Emirates or a wide-bodied aircraft. More likely to be a Boeing 737-MAX operator.

 

[dmrodgers]

From what I’ve been told by several people I think a Dubai route will happen sooner rather than later.

It won’t be Emirates or a wide-bodied aircraft. More likely to be a Boeing 737-MAX operator.

FlyDubai then the most obvious operator for a Leeds-Dubai service using their 737-Max aircraft.

 

[Iron Duck]

Why not Emirates? If they can manage all that service from MAN surely they could from LBA too, albeit with smaller aircraft?