Future Infrastructure Developments

[White Heather]

I still cannot quite get my head around the fact that these are the same people who approved the terminal expansion along with the resultant passenger growth in Jan 2019.
Perhaps they weren't fully awake when they signed it off. The total turn around in attitude beggars belief. Clearly party politics at work and these guys are in the pocket if the five Labour MPs.
Sounds like I had better start house hunting in another area of the country. If this is rejected I am done with my backward thinking city.

 

[Wardair166]

I despair with this part of the world. The decision makers are a disgrace. Words fail.

 

[Hendi]

I didnt see it but from what I can make out from the posts of people who did, it sounds like its going to be rejected?
If it is its an absoloute disgrace this planning app was perfect for lba and the region!! I know they said they won't but I hope they build the previously planned terminal extension And increase to 7 mill anyway.

 

[White Heather]

I just hope they appeal. The Plans panel have to have legitimate reasons to reject this. If they reject it due to the claim Leeds cannot hit it's CO2 targets despite being told that aviation emissions are excluded from those targets, or for some other reason that is contrary to the advice given by the planning officer, then it surely opens the door to a successful appeal, and I really think they must. It seems to be going down the same route as Bristol, and they have appealed.
These idiots are not fit to do this job and cannot be allowed to get away with this if there is any chance of reversal via the appeal process.
If (or when) it is rejected I would recommend that as many people as possible write to Hywel Rees asking that the airport do appeal.

 

[a300boy]

I still cannot quite get my head around the fact that these are the same people who approved the terminal expansion along with the resultant passenger growth in Jan 2019.
Perhaps they weren't fully awake when they signed it off. The total turn around in attitude beggars belief. Clearly party politics at work and these guys are in the pocket if the five Labour MPs.
Sounds like I had better start house hunting in another area of the country. If this is rejected I am done with my backward thinking city.

 

[a300boy]

That is exactly how I feel WH this area is not where I want to live under a labour council so time to move on.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I just hope they appeal. The Plans panel have to have legitimate reasons to reject this. If they reject it due to the claim Leeds cannot hit it's CO2 targets despite being told that aviation emissions are excluded from those targets, or for some other reason that is contrary to the advice given by the planning officer, then it surely opens the door to a successful appeal, and I really think they must. It seems to be going down the same route as Bristol, and they have appealed.
These idiots are not fit to do this job and cannot be allowed to get away with this if there is any chance of reversal via the appeal process.
If (or when) it is rejected I would recommend that as many people as possible write to Hywel Rees asking that the airport do appeal.

Not only did BRS's local authority (North Somerset Unitary Authority) reject the BRS planning application against the advice of their own professional planning officers, but when the planning committee came to formally set out the reasons for rejection they were told by their senior planning officer that two of the seven were illegal and had to be removed.

Mention has been made about entrenched views amongst many of the planning councillors who will decide the LBA application. In May 2019 the previous overwhelming Conservative majority on the North Somerset Unitary Authority (which would almost certainly have approved the BRS application) was replaced by a 'rainbow' council consisting mainly of Lib-Dems, Greens and Independents, a number of whom were elected on an anti-airport expansion 'ticket'. Most of these new councillors were later part of the planning committee that rejected the application.

When the new council was voted in I wrote in the BRS forum at the time that it meant a rejection of the BRS application and so it proved. It's rather like someone being charged at court with a number of burglaries who finds the jury consists of the aggrieved householders.

I agree with the opinion that major planning applications that might be contentious and which affect a major facility for a region should be taken out of the hands of local councillors and left to the national Planning Inspectorate. A professional planning inspector would look into the matter and a public enquiry would be part of the process. The planning inspector would then send his/her report to the secretary of state with recommendations with the minister making the final decision on the application.

That is what is now happening at BRS albeit via an appeal. Taking the first step out of the process would remove the prejudices and amateurism of elected councillors, saving time and money.

 

[Wardair166]

Excellent contribution. I would be dumbfounded if LBA do not launch an appeal to put the application in front of professionals. These ignorant, self serving local councillors cannot be allowed to ruin people's livelihoods. The aviation industry is on its knees. If there was ever a time to assist it, now is the time. I hope BRS can win their appeal and that LBA follows suit (if rejected)

 

[Heathrowflyer]

When will we know? Did they vote during this meeting? I feel as if I'm living in an alternative universe at the moment. I may be being naive but I just cant believe they'd reject it.

 

[Hendi]

It cant be too far away now the final decision. Was the ceo there? It would be interesting to hear his opinion on the meeting and his confidence on it getting approval after this.

 

[White Heather]

There was no vote at this meeting which I believe was virtual. It was an opportunity for the panel to ask questions and get answers, also for the Planning Officer to offer guidance as to what factors they should be looking at, where responsibility lies etc. Also to explain the data - and yes the CEO did a presentation and the consultant was also there (I presume the Council consultant from WSP, who is 'neutral)'.
The problem is, from what I have heard the panel don't want to hear anything unless it enables them to reject something they themselves approved in January 2019. Clearly they have been 'got at' by the five Labour MPs since then. If this is rejected, they are the ones in my view, to be held responsible ultimately.
The next step is a final report with a recommendation to either approve it or reject, from the planning officer, and then a final decision by the panel. As we have seen at Bristol, the panel could ignore that advice in which case it appears we have little chance of success.
The final decision is due in October.

 

[rmac]

If it is rejected then only LCC can be blamed for the poor and inadequate facilities at LBA. In the past all the criticism was with the airport management and the local authorities, expressions such "the Shed" and so on, also poor access, etc. If this is rejected, and the Parkway station too, all the blame is squarely with LCC. If others say what a 'dump' LBA is then everyone could say - well it was not the fault of the airport owners it was local councillors who did not want a modern efficient airport.-it could have been built.

 

[gcoabc1]

There was no vote at this meeting which I believe was virtual. It was an opportunity for the panel to ask questions and get answers, also for the Planning Officer to offer guidance as to what factors they should be looking at, where responsibility lies etc. Also to explain the data - ointed and yes the CEO ‘ a presentation and the consultant was also there (I presume the Council consultant from WSP, who is 'neutral)'.
The problem is, from what I have heard the panel don't want to hear anything unless it enables them to reject something they themselves approved in January 2019. Clearly they have been 'got at' by the five Labour MPs since then. If this is rejected, they are the ones in my view, to be held responsible ultimately.
The next step is a final report with a recommendation to either approve it or reject, from the planning officer, and then a final decision by the panel. As we have seen at Bristol, the panel could ignore that advice in which case it appears we have little chance of success.
The final decision is due in October.
[/QUOTE

 

[Coathanger16]

The ironic thing is I wouldn't be surprised if the councillors at LCC aren't fussed one way or the other about whether LBA replaces the terminal, they're just concerned that approving it would cost them votes at the next election.

I feel that we're hitting a tipping point with regards to expanding aviation.

There's been quite a drive globally, not just in the UK, to "Build Back Green" post Covid. Popular opinion is that aviation isn't green and therefore support has and will be little, if anything.

Going forwards I highly doubt any local council will approve any airport proposal, regardless of how "green" or efficient it is. The more "eco-friendly" thing to do is reject any proposal from an airport - to the green groups it doesn't matter what is being proposed. Any proposal will ultimately end up in the SoS in-tray, and the biggest factor determining whether it will go ahead is "when is the next election?"

It's criminal really that significant infrastructure projects are approved/rejected by elected individuals with no expert knowledge, rather than experts in the relevant fields.

There's no reasoning with these environmental groups - if they don't have a valid comeback to a point you make, they accuse you of lying or being on the airport's payroll. Sadly they tend to be far more vocal than pro-aviation groups.

 

[gcoabc1]

Just a couple of observations and points of clarification if possible please.

Excluding most of the councillors for a minute and you realise the Council planning, legal teams, admin, their appointed independent Consultant etc and LBA CEO were the only “professional, qualified and experts in this field” yet their worth, cost and opinions on the facts were actually of no value. It is lip service to the procedures, Party politics and fragile egos. Baffling.

One councillor actually said he would consider his decision based solely on the benefits to Leeds City. Now unless I missed something the signs around the airport terminal, literature and publicity photos of Local council leaders proclaims it as Yorkshire’s Airport. Indeed the whole proposal is supported by those councils and Business communities who pay substantial rates to those councils. The same councils who are screaming for financial, economic and employment assistance and incentives.

Surely if this is a City Region/county issue, even accepting that the airport is in LCC area, significant weighting, and opinions, should be sought from those areas and configured into the overall decision. Are they?

Why, like Local Yokel sets out in his excellent report, is there not a level above local planning to deal with this type of planning application. Even a full or Council Executive Meeting to discuss and lend their guidance to it, including the Councils own CEO?

With an elected mayor involved in the future does anyone know if theses decisions will fall under his office?

 

[White Heather]

I think these decisions should be taken away from the council and fall to the mayor when we have one. If this is rejected and they don't appeal, I hope they re-submit the application when we have a mayor. It is entirely wrong that a bunch of councillors who are only interested in their votes should take a decision that negatively impacts the entire region, particularly when in doing so they ignore the professional advice and support from key interested parties.
For me the current system is verging on corrupt.

 

[gcoabc1]

I fully agree. Surely their role is to ensure an application is fully embedded in current and legal local, regional, national even global policy and procedure. If it ticks those boxes, has been peer tested, appropriate authorities have vetted, contributed and agreed the application councillors input is that all of that has duly occurred and, with due weighting to personal/party policy is virtually rubber stamped. How is it not corrupt to ignore these facts.?

 

[Bigman]

I had a Lib Dem flyer through my letter box at the weekend in which they proudly note their objection to the expansion of the airport. They mention all the extra car journeys to the airport. So what about all the extra car journeys to MAN or DSA if we don’t expand? We’re alright Jack, but sod the Pennines..let’s pollute Saddleworth Moor instead. When are the next local elections?

 

[dakota eng]

Article about Fridays Council meeting in todays Yorkshire Post.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I had a Lib Dem flyer through my letter box at the weekend in which they proudly note their objection to the expansion of the airport. They mention all the extra car journeys to the airport. So what about all the extra car journeys to MAN or DSA if we don’t expand? We’re alright Jack, but sod the Pennines..let’s pollute Saddleworth Moor instead. When are the next local elections?

Its just beyond believe aint it! With whats happening at the moment esp with covid the parties should actually be in favor and promoting the plans at LBA with the likes of.. hundreds of new jobs planned with new eco friendly terminal, less polluting car journeys to MAN with new park and ride train station planned for new LBA terminal, wider choice of flights and destinations in the future for Yorkshire people. Just what the hell is wrong with them all! believe you me if it gets rejected some not pleasant emails will be sent out!