Future Infrastructure Developments

[CM.]

And that is the problem most if not all live and work in the South and only care about the South as they live there and couldn’t give a toss if airports like LBA survive or not. We need decent MPs that care about the north and airports and not jump on the environmental card constantly.

Leeds again is falling and lacking behind with transport and these MPs are making it worse by rejecting the terminal plans.

All I’m going to say if this is rejected it’s going to question their commitments for the north. As airports like Southampton can do their plans but we here at LBA cannot. Seems totally unfair.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The secretary of state could have 'recovered' the Stansted Airport appeal and made the decision himself following the Planning Inspectorate enquiry. However, he chose not to and was content to let the three planning inspectors who conducted the enquiry make the decision which was to allow the appeal.

STN was slightly unusual in that the local authority planning committee had originally approved the airport's planning application but when the council changed political colour the new administration voted to re-visit the matter and overturned the previous council's approval. That subsequently led to the airport's appeal. At the appeal, the local authority all but gave up on defending its decision and the planning inspectors made an order for costs against the council because of its unreasonable behaviour.

With SOU the secretary of state did not 'call in' the matter after the local authority had approved the planning application. Instead the ministry
asked the local authority to delay signing a formal agreement with the airport. The local authority agreed but said it intended issuing its decision by the end of May. Nothing further was heard from the ministry and the local authority has now formally issued its planning permission.

The ministry said that because the decision has been 'issued' the secretary of state no longer has the power to call it in.

This does contrast sharply with the action of the s of s against the LBA planning approval where a formal delay notice was issued by the minister allowing him time to consider what action if any he might take. With SOU it was no more than a request to which the local authority set a deadline, now expired. The s of s could have taken the same action with SOU as he did with LBA.

The next airport in line is also in the south - Bristol. Its appeal against its local authority's refusal to approve its planning application is already under way but the major part - the public enquiry - is expected to begin on 20 July with 40 sitting days scheduled at the moment. Political opinion in the region is hardening against the airport with only one of the five councils in the Greater Bristol area (the only Conservative-controlled one) in favour of the planning application, with two abandoning their earlier support. Even the airport's local MP, former Conservative minister Liam Fox, has changed his mind from supporting the airport expansion to opposing it.

It will interesting to see if the s of s is content to let the three planning inspectors appointed to conduct the enquiry make the decision, as he did with STN, or whether he will 'recover' it after the public enquiry to make the decision himself.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Has it been rejected?

 

[Len Fish]

Jenrick will make a decision once he and his aides have found Leeds on the map.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Jenrick will make a decision once he and his aides have found Leeds on the map.

They need a brain first.

If the Leeds MP’s had half a Brian they’d be dangerous too.

 

[CM.]

Even with a brain they would still be useless. I have lost all trust in these Leeds MPs.

 

[a300boy]

I never had any trust so not disappointed at all !!!
I am hoping the deafening silence from the Lba management team is a sign they are confident things will be resolved with a positive outcome.

 

[White Heather]

Has it been rejected?

No. It's unlikely he will reject it outright. More likely to order a public inquiry if he fails to sign it off. But having just seen the outcome at STN it makes you wonder why he would do that.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

No. It's unlikely he will reject it outright. More likely to order a public inquiry if he fails to sign it off. But having just seen the outcome at STN it makes you wonder why he would do that.

But SOU got approved as he didn't sign it off/reject it?

 

[White Heather]

But SOU got approved as he didn't sign it off/reject it?

He didn't call it in and didn't respond at all within the deadline that Eastleigh Council gave.

However, remember SOU was not required to submit to RJ due to green belt rules. LBA was. So our terminal was always going to require ministerial approval of some kind.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

He didn't call it in and didn't respond at all within the deadline that Eastleigh Council gave.

However, remember SOU was not required to submit to RJ due to green belt rules. LBA was. So our terminal was always going to require ministerial approval of some kind.

Thank you for the clarification.

Green belt land inside airports land parameters? got to love the U.K.

 

[Aviador]

Thank you for the clarification.

Green belt land inside airports land parameters? got to love the U.K.

Yes, the terminal would basically go here. It would sit on top of 1m think concrete, but yeh it's green belt.

 

[Coathanger16]

Wasn't the greenbelt issue more to do with the fact that the new terminal would stand very prominently over greenbelt and be in sight of a large area of greenbelt or something along those lines?

 

[White Heather]

That is what we were told at the ACC. However others have said that the green belt includes parts of LBA itself, which if true, is bonkers. It's almost as though it's a backdoor method of ensuring that anything LBA want to do, gets referred to the Robert Jenricks of this world!

Wasn't the greenbelt issue more to do with the fact that the new terminal would stand very prominently over greenbelt and be in sight of a large area of greenbelt or something along those lines?

 

[CM.]

It seems complete nonsense if it’s in the green belt. The picture that @Aviador shows where’s it’s going. It’s on concrete. Unless people think that concrete is the couler green!

This country is a great laughing stock to other country’s.

 

[Len Fish]

Yes, the terminal would basically go here. It would sit on top of 1m think concrete, but yeh it's green belt.

Would using green concrete help?

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Definition of Green Belt Land:

"A green belt is a policy and land-use zone designation used in land-use planning to retain areas of largely undeveloped, wild, or agricultural land surrounding or neighboring urban areas:

I guess given that a bit of the new airport terminal will be build on land previously undeveloped I can understand why it is needed the extra approval even if it is within the airport boundary. I doubt the roads and everything else that connects the terminal is within the boundary hence the need for approval.

 

[CM.]

Thanks for the definition. I get some of the area where the new terminal will be built is undeveloped but seems ridiculous not to allow it on that ground. It’s not being used now is it? If it was used for birds as an example that is not a good thing as birds pose a danger for aircraft. I find it ludicrous that there is a green belt area right next to an airport in the first place!

 

[Coathanger16]

I find it ludicrous that there is a green belt area right next to an airport in the first place!

Considering how green belts came into existence its hardly surprising!

Green belts surround cities to stop urban sprawl - think Los Angeles urban area.

Airports are generally located on the periphery of cities.

Ergo, airports will almost always be surrounded by green belt.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Thanks for the definition. I get some of the area where the new terminal will be built is undeveloped but seems ridiculous not to allow it on that ground. It’s not being used now is it? If it was used for birds as an example that is not a good thing as birds pose a danger for aircraft. I find it ludicrous that there is a green belt area right next to an airport in the first place!

As @Coathanger16 has stated, airports usually located on the outer edges of metropolises/cities etc. There is also the protection available to aircraft by the airside operations departments at all airports who have people going round in cars, scaring birds off, sounding other birds (be it there own breed in distress or a bird of prey) and what not. Big operation to keep bids away from aircraft.

As for for the green belt; as I have alluded do. Not all of this maybe within the airport boundary but could be on the outside/periphery. Think of access roads, airport terminal drop off/pick up, bus stops etc. That is why it is needed for approval.

Finally as you've alluded to one of the terms I believe on this been granted is to for the airport to plant more trees. The sensible councillors argued that to do that would need to be away form the airport due to the birds etc. If they were to do it near the airport, plant more trees, attract more birds, it could end up been worse for the climate given the need to divert and potentially dump fuel after a bird strike. I'm not sure what area is chosen yet but somewhere in North Leeds would be good.

The council need to also need to protect the Chevin and what not. I hope the airport would put aside a small fund to protect this also.