Future Infrastructure Developments

[Heathrowflyer]

...but let's leave any other stories to LBA to verify and do at this stage.

 

[Statto]

Not sure what you are concerned about. A statement to the press isn't a legal document so as long as it doesn't libel anyone.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

A statement of our support as a press release is a great idea...but please go via LBA if it's anything else. They will tell you if it's appropriate, factual information ..anything that's published ultimately becomes the legal responsibility of the person who has sent it. If it's a good story I'm sure LBA will use it. Its such a sensitive time Statto I really dont think we should meddle with LBA's plans.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

There is nothing to stop us issuing something to the press stating our support as a group but if course we are always likely to be challenged about what exactly the group is and who it represents. No more so though than GALBA. As long we don't claim to represent LBA themselves, them there is no real harm. My personal issue is that being on the Consultative Committee has in the past been used to allege that I am connected to the airport. I am not, but it's a weakness that I prefer the GALBA lot not to be in a position to use.

Heather,

Are there any members of the LBA Consultative Committee who are anti-airport? I ask because one of the parish council members of many years on the Bristol Airport Consultative Committee is vehemently anti-airport and she is usually one of the first people the local news media goes to for a quote for anything airport-related.

I certainly support Statto's point at #3,817 about local newspapers publishing verbatim press releases from organisations and dressing them up as if they were the newspapers' own work. I've seen it so often in my area especially with the likes of Reach plc (formerly Trinity Mirror) that owns around 250 regional newspapers throughout the UK and has to continually fill its web editions that are updated throughout the day with a lot of dross.

I don't think that the YEP is owned by Reach plc or any other major grouping but does the web edition permit readers to make their own comments at the bottom of articles it publishes? If so, one way to at least challenge the GALBA press releases masquerading as newspaper reports would be for members of F4A to post comments as individuals (not as F4A members as that would appear staged). If half a dozen or more comments were made each time pointing out the untruths and distortions of GALBA's views it would at least serve to present the other side of the arguments.

My concern is that a press release formally issued by F4A could easily be written off by opponents of the expansion as coming from a bunch of plane spotters. We know that our membership takes a far more serious and rounded view but whose hearts and minds do we want to capture? The planning councillors or Joe Public who could put pressure on the elected representatives?

 

[White Heather]

Heather,

Are there any members of the LBA Consultative Committee who are anti-airport? I ask because one of the parish council members of many years on the Bristol Airport Consultative Committee is vehemently anti-airport and she is usually one of the first people the local news media goes to for a quote for anything airport-related.

I certainly support Statto's point at #3,817 about local newspapers publishing verbatim press releases from organisations and dressing them up as if they were the newspapers' own work. I've seen it so often in my area especially with the likes of Reach plc (formerly Trinity Mirror) that owns around 250 regional newspapers throughout the UK and has to continually fill its web editions that are updated throughout the day with a lot of dross.

I don't think that the YEP is owned by Reach plc or any other major grouping but does the web edition permit readers to make their own comments at the bottom of articles it publishes? If so, one way to at least challenge the GALBA press releases masquerading as newspaper reports would be for members of F4A to post comments as individuals (not as F4A members as that would appear staged). If half a dozen or more comments were made each time pointing out the untruths and distortions of GALBA's views it would at least serve to present the other side of the arguments.

My concern is that a press release formally issued by F4A could easily be written off by opponents of the expansion as coming from a bunch of plane spotters. We know that our membership takes a far more serious and rounded view but whose hearts and minds do we want to capture? The planning councillors or Joe Public who could put pressure on the elected representatives?

I don't think that the online versions of these reports allow comments, but as I rarely bother to read them I am not sure. There are some on the committee who are not particularly supportive and some who support some things and not others. Obviously councillors are rarely totally one way or the other. There are some I thought were supportive but I have since seen indications that maybe they are not!

For me, whilst I love the idea of having something published which undermines GALBA and their total nonsense (they are certainly linked to this so called think tank from what I can see), the question now is will it actually make any difference? The time for the public to have their say in numbers came and went and as usual, few bothered . We can say what we like in the papers but it won't bring about a tidal wave of late support to the council, and it won't do much to change the views of the rather pathetic plans panel who appear to have little understanding of the value of an airport to their city. So long as they get voted in again next time, they are happy. It is the plans panel that has to be targeted here. In around 6 weeks time they are likely to make a final decision that could impact on this region for a generation to come.

 

[AndyL]

A very positive report on the economic benefits of the new terminal, commissioned by Leeds City Council, and largely debunking the claims made in the GALBA/NEF report has appeared on the Leeds planning portal today

 

[White Heather]

A very positive report on the economic benefits of the new terminal, commissioned by Leeds City Council, and largely debunking the claims made in the GALBA/NEF report has appeared on the Leeds planning portal today

Well for NEF read GALBA.

Their report gets more ridiculous the more I think about it. It contradicts the fact that almost globally,, cities and regions with successful airports generate growth as a direct result.

Welcome to Yorkshire support the terminal because of the inbound tourism it will bring - a point seemingly ignored by these idiots. In addition, do they seriously think that reduced flights from LBA will lead to everyone staying home and going for their jollies in Bridlington?? No, they will drive to Manchester instead, still fly abroad, but add to the Greater Manchester growth instead of ours. Of course that's what they want. They are, after all, just selfish NIMBYs who have an agenda and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

I am sure the Leeds City Council planners are smart and see through their games. They aren't the problem though. They aren't the ones up for re-election in the future. It's odd that councillors always believe that if they oppose the airport, they will be re-elected! My councillors will never get my vote again, or my families. Nor my MP for that matter!

 

[Flightlevel330]

A very positive report on the economic benefits of the new terminal, commissioned by Leeds City Council, and largely debunking the claims made in the GALBA/NEF report has appeared on the Leeds planning portal today

Just read it myself, and it’s a belter. Really shows up GALBA’s biased commissioned report. Getting NEF to do a report about a green airport expansion is like getting Ronald McDonald to report on Burger King, it’s no in there interest and should not be given the time of day. But once again the one throwing the tantrum and screaming the loudest gets the public attention

 

[leedslad]

The mad thing is they state a hit to the economy linked by West Yorks folk going on holiday from expanded LBA. But then oddly assume if LBA doesn't expand all those people won't know they could take a holiday via Manc which is a double hit to the West Yorkshire economy

 

[rmac]

Which all helps MAN fund its planned £1Billion expansion. The whole thing is crazy- West Yorkshire is handicapped whilst Manchester profits and the
Co emissions remain the same. Are there protests about MAN expansion?

 

[White Heather]

...but let's leave any other stories to LBA to verify and do at this stage.

Any press release under the name of Airport Support Group needs to be approved by LBA as a matter of courtesy. It's what we have always done.

 

[gcoabc1]

I have just had a notification from LCC Planning referring to a document submitted by LCC appointed consultants to validate and assess the veracity of data in LBA’s planning application regarding their Flight Schedule Technical Note. Consultants are Altitude Aviation Authority? Is this a new and independent look at the stats or did I miss something earlier because it lays out the facts reference the flight schedules with/without development very well and, albeit I am no techie on this subject I easily understood it and it nails the lid on protests on this particular matter. I hope I haven’t misread it !

 

[Statto]

I am sure the Leeds City Council planners are smart and see through their games. They aren't the problem though. They aren't the ones up for re-election in the future. It's odd that councillors always believe that if they oppose the airport, they will be re-elected! My councillors will never get my vote again, or my families. Nor my MP for that matter!

I agree. As we have said before the planning officers and legal team (not councillors) will make a recommendation based on the council's own policies and planning legislations.

Whatever they recommend, it will be put to a vote to the plans panel which is where the elected councillors come in. A simple majority is required, so it needs 7 of the 13 councillors to agree with whatever the plannign officers recommend, If officers recommend that the terminal is built and councillors vote against the recommendation, then will have to justify why they have gone against the advice of their own experts in any appeal that the airport brings. The council then faces substantial costs if they lose the appeal.

My best guess is the recommendation will be to approve, but with all sorts of planning conditions attached to try and appease the doubters. But I think the vote itself will be close. So, I don't think GALBAs strategy at the moment is to get lots more letters of objection submitted to the council, I think we're past that point. Their strategy is to try and sew some seeds of doubt amongst the councillors who might be persuaded either way. One or two councillors switching their opinion could make all the difference. The way they are carrying out this strategy is to issue statements to the press that come with big headlines that then get repeated over social media. It's very effective. We can criticise it for not being independent research and being heavily biased to their own agenda, but so what? If it casts some doubt or gives a waiverer a reason to swing to the reject camp from the approve camp, then its job done as far as GALBA is concerned. Dream scenario for them is the planning officers don;t recommend it for approval, but that's unlikely. Best case then is that councillors reject the recommendation and it goes to appeal and they get their day in the sunshine making all the same arguments all over again...and delay the scheme by a couple of years.

I'm sure the airport realise this and are doing all they can. But if they think there is a role for the support group, they should at least know we are willing to help?

anything that's published ultimately becomes the legal responsibility of the person who has sent it.

I think you are thinking of something other than a press release tbh. We could form a group saying the moon is made of blue cheese and issue a press release to that effect. So long as things aren;t libellous, then you can say what you want. GALBA have been saying that the application will lead to a doubling of emissions all summer, which has no basis in fact at all. Anyway, as I say, if the airport think there is value we can add, we should. If not, that;s fine too.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I stand by what WH said...anything posted or sent out in our name should go via the airport. I work for a business partner and I can tell you are really passionate, so why dont you go the airport management and pass some ideas via them? Business partners have kept away from the hands on strategy ( eg Jet 2) because they do not want to step on LBA's carefully crafted plans. The airport are employing a raft of consultants and at this stage we should leave it to the experts rather than send out " the moon is made of blue cheese" press releases. Frankly if it's got to this level I dont think we would be doing the reputation of the airport or its supporters any good. There's a reason that LBA dont send out ' the moon is made of blue cheese' information, because they are credible and factual and transparent.

 

[White Heather]

Any action taken on behalf of the Airport Support Group MUST come through myself and WILL be discussed with the right people first to ensure that what we do, will not result in any issues for the airport. Plans are afoot to try and provide support and target the right places. I beg patience therefore. I will let members know in due course what we intend and why.

Of course, if individuals wish to take separate action, they are free to do so, but not using the Support Group name.

Hope that is ok.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Brilliant, thanks WH.

 

[Statto]

Any action taken on behalf of the Airport Support Group MUST come through myself and WILL be discussed with the right people first to ensure that what we do, will not result in any issues for the airport. Plans are afoot to try and provide support and target the right places. I beg patience therefore. I will let members know in due course what we intend and why.

Of course, if individuals wish to take separate action, they are free to do so, but not using the Support Group name.

Hope that is ok.

That’s absolutely fine with me; just pointing out that there is a PR battle going on at the moment that I think the airport is losing, I contributed to the debate because this was being blamed on the media and accusations of an antI-airport agenda in the press that I don’t think is necessarily the case. The press will print interesting stories and GALBA are giving them interesting stories. Providing interesting stories that are positive about the airport and the application are needed to restore some balance, but I’m sure all in hand as you say. And just for clarity, the support group I had in mind was the LBA support group on Twitter which I thought had links to this site. It does a good job of fighting the good fight and I did not think its messages had to be discussed in advance with the airport. Perhaps there is more than one support group ?

 

[lbaspotter]

I think some of these posts either need moving or editing as this thread public and any member can see what's been posted on here.

@Statto check your PM's shortly

 

[Len Fish]

Screaming anti-airport headlines for public consumption from GALBA, local MP’s and the like are one thing buts it’s probably what’s going on behind the scenes that we’re not party to that will sway the decision one way or another.

 

[Len Fish]

“We could form a group saying the moon is made of blue cheese”. You mean it isn’t? There goes another belief held since childhood smashed in seconds, you cruel people.