Infrastructure, Construction & Developments


Advertisement


leedslad

Active Member
Feb 19, 2012
290
43
I may be wrong but I'd suspect often for this type of development it would be more typical to see more objections and very few supporters... Driven mainly as said above by the silent majority who don't feel the need to support.

I think this overwhelmingly shows how badly the terminal upgrade is wanted by Leeds residents.
 

White Heather

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2009
4,379
205
65
Leeds
You are correct Leedslad. That is usually the situation although of course the Council also know that. When LBA got 24 ops in 1994 and we submitted over 17000 statements of support (compared to 4000 opposition) to say LCC were surprised would be an understatement. Even their IT system struggled and back then they had to write to every person to acknowledge via post.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
Subscriber
Jan 12, 2009
13,928
373
HEAD OFFICE
With the media still peddling the "we are all doomed" rhetoric I would say the fights not over yet. I do hope employees working at the airport for the various companies will take time to pledge their support. Their job might depend on it.
 

White Heather

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2009
4,379
205
65
Leeds
Just checked again this afternoon:

Support 421
Objection 231
Highly unusual for an airport application. Let's just hope that this is maintained, and LCC have little regard to the objections recruited by ER from far and wide. I am still pestering folk I know to add their support and then do the same with their relatives and friends and so far just about everyone is keen to do so.
 

Aviador

Administrator
Staff member
Subscriber
Jan 12, 2009
13,928
373
HEAD OFFICE
There seems to be an ongoing theme from objectors saying the new terminal proposal is airport expansion. This is an odd route to follow considering the airport already has permission to expand to 7m passengers per annum.

The surface area of the new terminal is actually slightly smaller than the current terminal building, so when the airport announced its proposal for a terminal replacement they made it clear the airport wasn't getting bigger, or bigger than the plans already passed.

The new building is to be built on land already occupied by aircraft parking apron, so no infringement into any surrounding greenbelt land. If LCC decline permission for the new eco friendly terminal, the airport can indeed press ahead with previous plans aiming for 7m passenger annually on the basis of previously passed proposals.

Unrelated to airports, but this document suggests the previously granted proposals allowing expansion to 7mppa are unrevokable.

 
Last edited:

Ap1995

Active Member
Feb 27, 2011
494
43
Great post Aviador, maybe it might be worth another post on LCC website or getting a family member to highlight and reiterate these points!
 

blotbuc1

Premium Member
Subscriber
Mar 8, 2016
38
118
Aviador and others have highlighted the position in relation to the existing planning approvals for terminal extensions and the lack of a cap on passenger numbers. The ‘Planning Report’ which is one of the supporting documents that accompanies the planning application stresses that this is a material consideration with significant weight in the planning balance when making a decision on the application. LCC will be well aware of this!
 

airforced

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2010
776
93
North Yorkshire
Most, although not all, objectors will not have read the proposals but will continually re iterate the `Airport Expansion` mantra they have been told to. This is the frightening bit that allows `rentamob` to have a say in projects they have no `living` interest in.
I have just been thinking (it hurts by the way) and arrived at the conclusion that the 'rentamob' paully refers to are brain dead. They seem incapable of thinking through their ideas and reaching the obvious conclusions of what their desires would ultimately end up meaning for themselves and everyone else.

Students, are supposed to be intelligent, but they are are similarly encumbered with the same mentality. I just wonder how far back into the Dark Ages they think we will have to go before someone realises that a mistake has been made and the most acute brainbox amongst them suggests that they utilize some fossil fuels in order to heat a kettle so they can have a cup of coffee while they consider further a way forward out of the mess they have got everyone into.

Fortunately I won't be around then so they will have to sort it out themselves. Rant over for the time being.
 

fight2win

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2018
622
93
40
baildon
www.easydrive-yorkshire.co.uk
:LOL: some interesting brain analysis going on in here today, all very true though (as I start to get a headache) Many members of the public are very much brain washed, much of the time by the media in fact and follow each other like sheep.
When the plans were first announced for the terminal the subject came up whilst I was with a group of d.instructors down low lane, surprise surprise straight away the subject of noise and traffic came up, I then straight away told them the true facts about aviation, the benefits etc the two were very narrow minded with no counter points to backup their claims. What im saying is people need to open their minds a little more and try also look at the positives as well, not just this tunnel minded negative approach.
 

White Heather

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2009
4,379
205
65
Leeds
If folk don't like aeroplanes (which is the root cause of many objectors attitudes) or they don't like them on their doorsteps because they chose to live near an airport, then they will manufacture any spurious reason they can to object and in their heads, justify that objection. Such people only take a selfish view and rarely if ever change their mind. It's a pointless exercise even trying.
 
Top Bottom