Future Infrastructure Developments

[Len Fish]

Perhaps LBA have already done an environmental impact assessment on the lesser spotted newt?

 

[Aviador]

Other questions have been asked throughout the planning portal so it's nothing new. It's information requested by the council that is important.

 

[Len Fish]

The danger is that if the Council approve the plans but don’t ask for and consider the environmental impact information and/or it’s not provided by LBA, the application could well go down the same road as the third Heathrow Airport and be successfully appealed on the grounds it did not take into account the environmental policies of the Council/Government. I see this as a real threat and one that LBA need to pre-empt very quickly.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I agree...this is sadly all about consultation and process...and then giving people even more time to respond to that information. If it was anything else other than a government body I dont think it would be an issue in terms of time frames. Why they left it so long to respond though bemuses me.

 

[Len Fish]

I suspect the Natural England objection has come deliberately late in the day to have the most impact, being one of the last objections made and therefore remembered and to give little time for their arguments to be refuted.

 

[Aviador]

But as @lbaspotter has pointed out, all the areas mentioned by Natural England are nowhere near LBA and could be regarded as irrelevant.

 

[Len Fish]

Agreed, but it’s the precedent set by the rejection of the third runway at Heathrow, based on the approval not taking into account all environmental aspects that worries me.

 

[Aviador]

It's a fair comment and LBAs legal team will need to assess whether this is something they need to look at. What the objectors are repeatedly forgetting though is 7.1m passengers were approved during the previous approved planning application. The capacity increase in this application deals with the terminal capacity to reach agreed levels.

 

[alpha.alpha]

A new runway does provide a whole lot more environmental issues then a new terminal, also worth baring in mind.

 

[Wardair166]

Particularly when LBAs proposed new terminal will not involve any green belt development.

 

[Coathanger16]

Surely by the fact the airport has said the new terminal will be "one of the most environmentally efficient terminals in the UK" would suggest they have considered at least some of the environmental impacts?

I only dip into the LBA forums every once in a while so I'm not fully up to speed with everything, but one article I read suggested as part of this plan that the operating hours would be extended? Is that part of these plans, part of the previously approved plans to expand the existing terminal up to 7mppa, a completely separate proposal, or completely made up?

Sorry to play devils advocate here, but some on this forum have suggested that the likes of easyJet may only open a base at LBA if the airport builds a new terminal. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with that premise, and although the increase in flights that would bring have already been approved, it could be argued that building a new terminal will in fact lead to an increase in the number of flights.

 

[White Heather]

Surely by the fact the airport has said the new terminal will be "one of the most environmentally efficient terminals in the UK" would suggest they have considered at least some of the environmental impacts?

I only dip into the LBA forums every once in a while so I'm not fully up to speed with everything, but one article I read suggested as part of this plan that the operating hours would be extended? Is that part of these plans, part of the previously approved plans to expand the existing terminal up to 7mppa, a completely separate proposal, or completely made up?

Sorry to play devils advocate here, but some on this forum have suggested that the likes of easyJet may only open a base at LBA if the airport builds a new terminal. I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing with that premise, and although the increase in flights that would bring have already been approved, it could be argued that building a new terminal will in fact lead to an increase in the number of flights.

LBA is a 24 hour airport. All they are wanting to do is redefine what is day time and what is night time, because at LBA flights are classified as night flights between 0600 and 0700, and between 2300 and 2330 (thereby using up the annual quota) when at virtually all other airports, they are classified as daytime flights.

There is no extension of hours as such. These redefined hours also do not lead to more flights, although clearly it does mean that the airport will no longer be approaching their annual maximum night flight quota (which they are doing now). The only flights likely to be impacted by the change are early departures and later arrivals by based aircraft. This is included in the submission for planning approval and the terminal is dependent upon this being approved, because the owners are not prepared to spend £150m but still be prevented from competing with other airports due to flights being counted as night flights when they should be day flights.

The current rules date from 1994 when LBA was still predominantly operating Chapter 2 jet aircraft such as the 737 200. Aircraft have already become significantly quieter and will become even more so if we can attract the latest generation of jets such as the A320NEO. With the new terminal, we might do. Without the terminal we have little chance.

 

[Crashgate]

Not seen it reported but buried in the planning docs is that the night quota for flights will be dropped to an annual 1375 from the current 2800 which is just for the summer if I remember correctly. Happy to be corrected on this.

As WH says the original limits were set back when the current range of aircraft were not flying so is obsolete. The count works on a value given to aircraft type based on the amount of noise it makes so can vary, most aircraft at LBA fall between 1 and 0.125, so an aircraft with a value of .25 will be able to do 4 movements for each movement of an aircraft with a value of 1.

If the new quota figure looks small then it should be remembered that the morning departures will not need to be accounted for and it will only really be the later arrivals taking up the quota mainly in the summer season. If the proposed scheme had been in operation now i doubt it would affected operations (if Covid had not happened).

 

[White Heather]

I suspect that reduction is something the group that shall not be mentioned would not want to be publicised . Effectively the annual quota will have been reduced by the movements per annum that have moved from night time to day time.

 

[airforced]

A very interesting post Crashgate and one which, the implications of which, hasn't been discussed on here. Thinking about it, it is probably best not discussed on here as who knows where it could lead. Best left to the LBA experts to sort out I think.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Support comment submitted 22:25 10/07/2020. Always one to leave it to the very last minute but always wanted to submit it right at the last minute. Anyone have trouble seeing their comments after submitting. I've got the email confirming a SUPPORT comment has been submitted but cannot yet see my information on the portal. Some very stupid and idiotic comments from the objection camp submitted at the last minute.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Support comment submitted 22:25 10/07/2020. Always one to leave it to the very last minute but always wanted to submit it right at the last minute. Anyone have trouble seeing their comments after submitting. I've got the email confirming a SUPPORT comment has been submitted but cannot yet see my information on the portal. Some very stupid and idiotic comments from the objection camp submitted at the last minute.

had the same problem myself but it just takes a bit longer for the comment to appear after posting. managed 5 support comments, myself, 1 friend, 1 family and 2 off FB.

 

[stars&sids]

I’ll ask my brother, he was driving a Dozer on that job.

My brother says there was a nice seam of coal running up at around a 60 degree angle, he was cleaning it off so it could be taken off site to be sold. However, there wasn’t enough of it to make anyone rich, but enough to not just bury it somewhere. We do a lot of earthworks and we often come across coal in small seams and pockets. It always has to come out to minimise the risk of potential methane gas escaping into new buildings built on the site, or even worse, potential underground fires. In the case of the Multiflight hanger he remembers the seam as being on the outer edges of the main works, more on the access roads. He also sent me a couple of pictures from the job of his machine in front of the chequered building next to the golf course.

 

[G-AZNZ(2)]

My brother says there was a nice seam of coal running up at around a 60 degree angle, he was cleaning it off so it could be taken off site to be sold. However, there wasn’t enough of it to make anyone rich, but enough to not just bury it somewhere. We do a lot of earthworks and we often come across coal in small seams and pockets. It always has to come out to minimise the risk of potential methane gas escaping into new buildings built on the site, or even worse, potential underground fires. In the case of the Multiflight hanger he remembers the seam as being on the outer edges of the main works, more on the access roads. He also sent me a couple of pictures from the job of his machine in front of the chequered building next to the golf course.

Nice one - thanks for that.
Thought I might have dreamt it!!!

 

[Wardair166]

Does anyone know when LCC are due to make a decision on LBAs new terminal proposal? I heard a rumour of September??