Future Infrastructure Developments

[Statto]

So let me get this straight. If SoS turns it down, that pretty much cabs the whole idea and we are left to fester while everywhere else grows. If the SoS grants it, the current owners are not even going to put shovels in the ground for another 3 years, which means we are left to fester while everywhere else around us grows. If the SoS grants it, but the current owners sell up, it will take ages for a new buyer to come forward, ages for them to take over, and then no doubt start doing their own cost analysis and assessments, which will take ages and we will be left to fester while everywhere else grows.

As WH states Secretary of State can rule it out due to impact on the green belt, but this is unlikely. Other than that, he can't "turn it down" - he can ask for it to be considered by a public enquiry. In which case, the application is heard again with arguments for and against.

The flaw in the rest of your argument is this idea that "everywhere else grows". Well if that were true, it would suggest a strong recovery from Covid and a thriving aviation sector in which case the business case for building the new terminal or expanding the existing terminal (assuming the planning application is ultimately rejected) will be much stronger than it is today

 

[Bigman]

As WH states Secretary of State can rule it out due to impact on the green belt, but this is unlikely. Other than that, he can't "turn it down" - he can ask for it to be considered by a public enquiry. In which case, the application is heard again with arguments for and against.

The flaw in the rest of your argument is this idea that "everywhere else grows". Well if that were true, it would suggest a strong recovery from Covid and a thriving aviation sector in which case the business case for building the new terminal or expanding the existing terminal (assuming the planning application is ultimately rejected) will be much stronger than it is today

Which is all OK, but if the shovels don't hit the dirt quickly, we stand not to recover as fast as we could. If the owners are not even going to start for 3 years, where does that leave us?

 

[White Heather]

Which is all OK, but if the shovels don't hit the dirt quickly, we stand not to recover as fast as we could. If the owners are not even going to start for 3 years, where does that leave us?

Older!

 

[LBA4EVER]

If construction does not start for another 3 years then its just the biggest P*** take going, end of!!

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I guess because the remit of an equity company is to restructure and sell on an investment. That's their business model.

A business acquired by an equity house is effectively always for sale. Personally I don't think it matters which equity company owns LBA as long as that equity company is committed to the terminal development then I'm happy.

AMP seem to be offloading investments globally at the moment to raise capital. Its not a question of if they sell LBA its when they will sell it on. If we wanted a long term owner then a Ltd company or PLC buy out might be the best bet.

 

[Aviador]

Which is all OK, but if the shovels don't hit the dirt quickly, we stand not to recover as fast as we could. If the owners are not even going to start for 3 years, where does that leave us?

You need to be realistic. The Secretary of State hurdle isn't the final hurdle as there is likely to be one further hurdle to cross. Tendering will also need to take place before anything can happen.
Isn't everyone just jumping to conclusions here? In any case, the council planning officers were clear, the main reason to restrict the change of operating hours was to prevent the airport carrying on with the status quo without the benefits of having a new terminal. This means when aviation bounces back (which it will do) LBA will need the new terminal sooner rather than later.

 

[Wardair166]

Any idea as to when RJ will announce his decision?

 

[Aviador]

Any idea as to when RJ will announce his decision?

Anyone's guess.

 

[markietg]

It said on the lunchtime Look North it would be announced later today

 

[Aviador]

If he has any sense, he'll let GALBA fight it's own corner rather than waste public money. Let GALBA take out a judicial review and let them pay for it out of their own pocket.

 

[Wardair166]

The ability to disrupt in this country makes my blood boil.

 

[White Heather]

Radio Leeds just reported that Jenrick wants longer to decide if s public inquiry is required, or not. No decision today, and so he has failed to fast track the decision as he can do under green belt regulations.

Frankly, this doesn't send out a positive signal other than to GALBA and the opponents.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I feel sick with worry. We need to get aviation back on its feet to pay our mortgages.

 

[White Heather]

The Government have effectively blocked the Council from granting final planning consent without special approval according to the BBC, as they have put in place an order to stop them doing so.

 

[Aviador]

Somebody needs to grow some balls and make a decision. In the meantime while all this nonsense is going on, other airports around the UK have increased their capacity substantially over the last 18 months and significantly more than what LBA is planning. The land where LBAs planned new terminal is to be situated is currently occupied by 1m thick concrete with 737-800 aircraft sat on it. Hardly a green belt issue.

 

[a300boy]

So what next ?
How much would Amp get for the land to build houses on ?
Could this be a stitch up I really hope not.

 

[White Heather]

It gets worse. The BBC is saying a decision could be delayed 'indefinitely'as it sets a precedent for other airports.
That as close as you can get to a refusal without saying no. It sounds as though the Government don't want it to proceed until they have reviewed their own policy on aviation and climate change.

Just as well.thry weren't planning in starting before 2024 then!!

 

[Bigman]

Just read it on the BBC website. Looks like we have been lumped in with all the other schemes, so if you look at them as a whole, it could be seen as a bigger potential environmental impact, and it is more likely that a central decision to can them all to be seen to be climate friendly might be the result.

 

[Aviador]

So if the scheme is canned completely how does failing major infrastructure ever get renewed. No renewal of roads, airports or other major infrastructure schemes. Meanwhile, China and India are building literally hundreds of airports at the economic expense of the UK and if we are to believe the environmentalists, it's a futile response that will achieve nothing.

 

[White Heather]

Just read it on the BBC website. Looks like we have been lumped in with all the other schemes, so if you look at them as a whole, it could be seen as a bigger potential environmental impact, and it is more likely that a central decision to can them all to be seen to be climate friendly might be the result.

Which suggests Bristol, Stansted, Southampton etc. will all be canned too. Manchester will be fine of course. Nobody ever says anything about their expansion.

Totally sick of this.