Future Infrastructure Developments

[LBA787]

I think the new terminal plus the change in flying hours come hand in hand, It’s an all or nothing situation, or at least that’s how it seems to me...

Surely AMP will not be willing to put that amount of money down without the ability to get it back. Having the hours changed will mean the airport becomes more attractive to the orange folks and possibly a larger Irish mob presence.

I know if I were them with £150M I wouldn’t settle for anything less! It’s bad enough the council have already done the dirty and pulled the new link road. It’s obvious the terminal placement was so it gained from it’s locality and that of the proposed rail link.

 

[White Heather]

I think the new terminal plus the change in flying hours come hand in hand, It’s an all or nothing situation, or at least that’s how it seems to me...

Surely AMP will not be willing to put that amount of money down without the ability to get it back. Having the hours changed will mean the airport becomes more attractive to the orange folks and possibly a larger Irish mob presence.

I know if I were them with £150M I wouldn’t settle for anything less! It’s bad enough the council have already done the dirty and pulled the new link road. It’s obvious the terminal placement was so it gained from it’s locality and that of the proposed rail link.

You are correct in that LBA have said that if the day/night defined hours are not amended in line with competing airports they will not build the terminal. It is both, or nothing.

 

[White Heather]

We now have our Lib Dem Councillor, Jonathan Bentley putting out a message in this ward (Weetwood,/Cookridge) that includes mention of the airport application and telling people that the airport has applied to increase early morning and late night flying hours. Yet again a blatant misrepresentation of what is actually being applied for, designed no doubt to generate opposition . The has included the link to the Planning Forum and given the reference number.

I have of course written to him to point out his error which I suspect is not an error at all. I doubt he will issue any clarification or if he does it will be too late to make a difference. I have forwarded to LBA for information in case their PR manager wishes to have a word with Cllr Bentley. I certainly will next time he comes pushing leaflets through my door!

 

[airforced]

Purely out of interest can anyone tell me how many scheduled movements there have been during the 'night' hours in recent years and how those numbers stacked up against the 'allowed' movements. Extra movements that have to be explained and justified are, presumably, are additional to any allowed movements. My quest for knowledge stems from a desire to get my head around what the fuss is all about, as what they are asking for doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable to me.

 

[rmac]

airforced….. I agree with you, the changes proposed seem very reasonable and would it really make a great deal of difference? LBA is after all relatively small, even if the projected 7 million is achieved and this now might take many years to come about. My local is Edinburgh so now for every one landing/take off in Leeds there are four in Edinburgh. We have several friends who live in Livingston, 5 to 6 miles from the airport, under the flight path, and nobody really bothers, you almost forget there is an airport nearby! I cannot see what all the fuss is about with the LBA application. I hope others see it that way.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The difference there is Bristol was already substantially larger than LBA plus BRS wasn't in a position where the expansion had already been approved through other previous planning applications. This is what is unique about this application. The expansion was approved for the current terminal under Bridgepoint. The groundwork was done but the actual build was never completed. An additional planning application went in to alter the B Hall check In structure to make it more permanent. This is a building that is already in place but it is on a temporary but extended planning approval. Then finally, approval was given for the new arrivals facility to cope the projected passenger numbers of 7m. Again, some ground works have been carried out
Each development has technically started. The approval has already taken place. The new planning application basically replaces the old applications to build a more efficient terminal. This is not an application to further increase passenger numbers. The outcome is far from certain but I don't know how the council can stop it on the basis of calling it "expansion" when that expansion has already been approved?

I suspect that with regard to the change in night time/day time flying defined hours, they could agree them but reduce substantially the permitted movements outside those hours. LBA probably wouldn't need anywhere near the permitted number of annual movements per annum they have now if 0600 to 0700 and 2300 to 2330 became daytime as most of the current night time movements are within those periods. They could probably reduce the permitted movements by 30 to 40% and make it work.
I totally agree that we cannot be compared to Bristol which already carried double the LBA passengers per year. Even with this terminal & the pre approved expansion to 7m we are still behind Bristol despite having a substantially larger population within the catchment area, which sort of sums LBA up really doesn't it?

My post at #3,145 above was solely intended to address Heathrowflyer's comment that said, "There's no question in my mind the terminal development will be approved...private sector investments at times like this are gold dust."

From my vantage point at the other end of England the planned new LBA terminal is such an obvious thing to do that only those people so fixated against aviation expansion that they are unable to entertain any view to the contrary would oppose the notion.

I'm extremely impressed at the number of formal comments in support on the LCC planning website. In my part of the world airport expansion planning applications usually see formal objection comments to the local authority outnumbering support comments in a ratio of 3 or 4:1.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Like most uk airports the majority of flights will be departing flights around 6-7am with very few arrivals unless its the big ones like MAN,LHR. The majority of the time it will be runway32 in use due to the wind in this country blowing generally from the south west (believe its around 70% of the time) so those extra departing flights between 6-7am will depart over less populated areas rather than more urban areas. Does anyone on here have the percentages of flights that depart runway 32 against 14?

 

[LBA787]

My post at #3,145 above was solely intended to address Heathrowflyer's comment that said, "There's no question in my mind the terminal development will be approved...private sector investments at times like this are gold dust."

From my vantage point at the other end of England the planned new LBA terminal is such an obvious thing to do that only those people so fixated against aviation expansion that they are unable to entertain any view to the contrary would oppose the notion.

I'm extremely impressed at the number of formal comments in support on the LCC planning website. In my part of the world airport expansion planning applications usually see formal objection comments to the local authority outnumbering support comments in a ratio of 3 or 4:1.

I noticed someone from Totterdown has put in an objection letter. Thought of you when I read it!

From my year living in Bristol I’m surprised BRS has actually grown to the size it has with the local population around it. A very green thinking city. Loved it though!

 

[White Heather]

Purely out of interest can anyone tell me how many scheduled movements there have been during the 'night' hours in recent years and how those numbers stacked up against the 'allowed' movements. Extra movements that have to be explained and justified are, presumably, are additional to any allowed movements. My quest for knowledge stems from a desire to get my head around what the fuss is all about, as what they are asking for doesn't seem excessive or unreasonable to me.

No I don't have the figures but I can tell you the quota of night movements has never been exceeded, but before Covid they were starting to get closer to the limit. The change in definition really only affects based aircraft departing early and arriving late, so given the number of based aircraft now is less than 2 years ago by at least 2 or 3, and not all the based aircraft will need to depart before 0700 or arrive back after 2300, it really won't make much difference in the short term. Only if the the based aircraft increase substantially (which will require an apron project to create more stands,) will there be much difference.

 

[752]

a lot of objection comments yesterday and today - wouldn’t be surprised if objection has now taken over support.. I managed to get another support yesterday.
the airport definitley need to post a follow up email for support and post on their own Facebook / agent Facebook pages.. the industry needs as much support as possible..

 

[Aviador]

Think jobs jobs jobs when asking people because it's not just about creating new jobs it's also about keeping exsisting ones.

 

[flyboy]

An extremely supportive and well-reasoned article regarding the new terminal on the Yorkshire Evening Post website. Sorry, I don't know how to link it but maybe it's time for everyone on here to stop their tiresome and continual criticism of the YEP!

 

[dakota eng]

Good article backing the airport in todays YP Business section by Mark Casci. He says , back it in full.

 

[airforced]

No I don't have the figures but I can tell you the quota of night movements has never been exceeded, but before Covid they were starting to get closer to the limit. The change in definition really only affects based aircraft departing early and arriving late, so given the number of based aircraft now is less than 2 years ago by at least 2 or 3, and not all the based aircraft will need to depart before 0700 or arrive back after 2300, it really won't make much difference in the short term. Only if the the based aircraft increase substantially (which will require an apron project to create more stands,) will there be much difference.

So in essence what you are saying WH, and I agree with you, is that the airport has been a good neighbour and intends to continue as such once this virus has been dealt with. The operating hours extension proposal is purely to level up the rules with other (competing) airports such as Manchester.


With the plans they have submitted they intend to build, with private not public finance, a new terminal which will benefit the millions of people who use the airport each year in addition to making an investment in the City and Yorkshire Region as a whole which, in turn, will be good for the local economy and create a long term enhanced facility which all can be proud of.


What isn’t there to like? Should the Council spurn the opportunity for the airport to be brought into the modern age without any public money being spent and attract more visitors to Yorkshire all they will be doing is encouraging people to get in their cars to travel over the M62 and use Manchester Airport as opposed to putting money into their local economy.


It therefore strikes me a crazy that, taking everything into account, that those objecting to what is being proposed are even listened to. Thank you for your explanation of the situation. It has enlightened me.

 

[jason1-11]

Good article backing the airport in todays YP Business section by Mark Casci. He says , back it in full.

There you go :

An empowered Leeds Bradford Airport is essential for Yorkshire and we must back it in full - Mark Casci

Leeds and Bradford Municipal Aerodrome. Yeadon Aerodrome. Leeds Bradford International Airport.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

 

[White Heather]

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Row over increased flights claims at Leeds Bradford Airport

CAMPAIGNERS are claiming that thousands more people will hear flights if Leeds Bradford Airport's expansion plans proceed.

www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk

Row over increased flights.

Why dont the airport put their case more firmly? Being asked to comment is one thing but shouldn't they be hitting the headlines by putting their own case?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Row over increased flights claims at Leeds Bradford Airport

CAMPAIGNERS are claiming that thousands more people will hear flights if Leeds Bradford Airport's expansion plans proceed.

www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk

Row over increased flights.

Why dont the airport put their case more firmly? Being asked to comment is one thing but shouldn't they be hitting the headlines by putting their own case?

"The airport's proposals include easing a number of restrictions on flights. GALBA claims those changes would result in 26,100 more people hearing between one and 50 more planes on an average summer day and 'a staggering 126,000 more people' being exposed to increased aircraft noise at night."

Why would 26,100 more people hear between one and 50 more aircraft on an average summer's day but 126,000 hear more aircraft night noise? Unless aircraft fly different routes at night are 99,900 of the 126,000 elsewhere during the day (at work perhaps?) but return at night so they can be exposed to the night noise? If so, how did GALBA arrive at such specific figures?

Prima facie the figures make no sense and as usual local press 'journalists' never bother to interrogate. They just accept whatever press release is shoved in front of them (whether from airport protestors or from any other organisation) and publish it.

I agree that airports could be more assertive at times when addressing complaints from objectors that are often spurious and, not infrequently, plain lies. Referring people to evidence-based analysis on the Leeds City Council planning website, and speaking about
robust noise assessments, new technology and new innovations is too general and many people's eyes will glaze over. They should be adopting something short, snappy and hard-hitting to rebut the worst excesses of objector groups' vivid imagination.

My local airport at Bristol had an expansion planning application rejected by the local authority earlier this year. In the lead-up the local rag carried a report about a local Green councillor who asserted that the plans would lead to an additional 10,000 car journeys each day. The airport was asking to be allowed to increase its planning cap from 10 million per annum to 12 million. Two million more passengers would equate to an extra 5,479 journeys a day, but only if every additional passenger including young children drove to and from the airport alone in a car.

Even with some extra staff employed to service the additional passengers it would be highly unlikely that the additional daily car journeys would number more than 2,000. Yet the newspaper report did not question the claim and, even more astonishly, the airport made no attempt to pour scorn on it either when asked for a comment but simply resorted to the generalised 'company-speak' pursued by the LBA management in this case.

 

[Aviador]

I couldn't agree more. ER are fighting their corner, the majority of airport users would love to benefit from these proposals but the majority of people won't feel they need to have their say. Its vital they do at this stage.

 

[XEROX]

So those concerned about noise levels... for reference.

LINK

Typical Sound	Approximate noise level (dBA)​
Pneumatic drill, 7m away	​ 95
Heavy diesel lorry at 40km/h, 7m away	85​
Medium Aircraft Descending at 1000ft	70
Busy general office	60
Quiet office	50
Quiet bedroom, library	35
Threshold of audible sound	0