Future Infrastructure Developments

[ls27]

Well, that's brought out many shocking posts. Seems we are all well plugged in.

 

[Aviador]

Anyway, flagging down a cab and getting back to real street, I don’t see anything on the plans to suggest what is to happen to the current terminal site. Is this to ripped down? If so, I hope that they don’t just make yet another car park. The area should be flattened, and the apron extended right back. This should create some very large stands (possible dedicated freight apron?), or lots of extra smaller ones.

I believe this is one of the things to be discussed with the council as it was one of the things flagged. The councillors want it pulled down as soon as possible. I don't see this as been likely while the tower is still situated there. I would guess the airport options will be to:-

Demolish the building around the tower and keep the tower operational.

Build a new tower sooner to enable the old structure to be demolished.

Agree a timeframe to enable the old structure to stay initially until a new tower is built.

I imagine the third option will be the most favorable given the cost involved with building a new tower.

 

[White Heather]

Anyway, flagging down a cab and getting back to real street, I don’t see anything on the plans to suggest what is to happen to the current terminal site. Is this to ripped down? If so, I hope that they don’t just make yet another car park. The area should be flattened, and the apron extended right back. This should create some very large stands (possible dedicated freight apron?), or lots of extra smaller ones.

It is in the plans. In the short term the old terminal will continue to be used by the airport as office space and ATC. Once they have a new ATC tower it will be demolished, although it's not clear where the airport company will then relocate it's offices to. Nothing is clear either as to what the area would be used for but car parking isn't an option as the plans say that if future additional parking is required it will be at the Viking Car Park. The intention though is not to increase parking spaces if possible.

 

[gcoabc1]

It is in the plans. In the short term the old terminal will continue to be used by the airport as office space and ATC. Once they have a new ATC tower it will be demolished, although it's not clear where the airport company will then relocate it's offices to. Nothing is clear either as to what the area would be used for but car parking isn't an option as the plans say that if future additional parking is required it will be at the Viking Car Park. The intention though is not to increase parking spaces if possible.

I came to the same conclusion WH from several runs through the Planning Application and Councillors requests of the Planning Officers and did not feel as though it was negotiable.
I have no doubt LBA have ideas in mind none of which would be additional air passenger car parking. Maybe hotel ?

 

[lbaspotter]

Anyway, flagging down a cab and getting back to real street, I don’t see anything on the plans to suggest what is to happen to the current terminal site. Is this to ripped down? If so, I hope that they don’t just make yet another car park. The area should be flattened, and the apron extended right back. This should create some very large stands (possible dedicated freight apron?), or lots of extra smaller ones.

Where have you been @Bigman

The existing Terminal will be demolished, short term parts of it will have to be retained due to the Control Tower and office space until replacements are found.

The airport dose has plans for the existing site, but theses have not been made public as plans aren't finalised.

Looking at plans the is plenty of room for new office space to be allocated within the new 3 storey terminal building. Or possibly they could go to a site on Airport West Estate?

A new site will have to be found on the airfield for a replacement control tower, this hasn't been decided yet but my guessing is that this will go south side.

 

[LBA4EVER]

In my opinion and thinking further down the line in advance, once the new terminal is built shut down the old terminal apart from obviously the control tower, this will fall in line with the airports eco plan, once a new control tower is constructed then knock down the old terminal and control tower which then leaves masses of space to expand the apron to create more parking stands, and when the time is right they can extend the pier on the new terminal. I have no idea what their plans are, i imagine they have a few ideas but thats my thoughts.

 

[Bigman]

Where have you been @Bigman

The existing Terminal will be demolished, short term parts of it will have to be retained due to the Control Tower and office space until replacements are found.

The airport dose has plans for the existing site, but theses have not been made public as plans aren't finalised.

Looking at plans the is plenty of room for new office space to be allocated within the new 3 storey terminal building. Or possibly they could go to a site on Airport West Estate?

A new site will have to be found on the airfield for a replacement control tower, this hasn't been decided yet but my guessing is that this will go south side.

Working too bloody hard and rapidly losing the plot .

 

[Heathrowflyer]

But if no extra parking is created where will the additional pax cars go when numbers increase?

 

[lbaspotter]

But if no extra parking is created where will the additional pax cars go when numbers increase?

If you read the planning application you know that extra car parking spaces are been made available by increasing the Viking Car park.

 

[White Heather]

But if no extra parking is created where will the additional pax cars go when numbers increase?

This is Leeds remember!
a) On the bus
b) On the train via the Parkway
c) On a pushbike as no doubt by then they will have built a totally useless cycle lane to LBA.
d) in an electric taxi.

LCC don't want nasty cars or nasty car parks. The planning application says no increase planned in parking spaces overall.

 

[White Heather]

If you read the planning application you know that extra car parking spaces are been made available by increasing the Viking Car park.

Yes but only to replace those lost in the long stay car park. It says no increase overall.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

My question would be if a legal challenge is forthcoming will the airport want to start work before the outcome in known?

No feedback on this, but I think its an important point.

 

[Aviador]

No feedback on this, but I think its an important point.

I imagine it will all boil down to timing.

There are still a number of obstacles to cross before the application can be rubber-stamped. We know that the vociferous objectors will do everything in their power to delay the process and create more hoops to jump through and it is likely they will launch a legal challenge if they are able to. We can also be sure Extinction Rebellion will find the money to assist GALBA with this process.

Has the airport got anything to gain by starting the development before all this is ironed out? Probably not. I am sure we will see a quick recovery once the economy is released from its lockdown. It is likely the aviation industry will have been set back two to three years. If it takes another 12-18 months before construction can begin it probably wont make a great deal of difference to the future of the airport by delaying the project temporarily.

What is for sure in my opinion is if AMP decide to sell the airport within the next few years, no investor will touch it until either the new terminal is built, or the planning permission is secured for the new terminal. What I understand though is AMP bought LBA as a long term acquisition so it is unlikely they will decide to sell it. It goes without saying though, at this moment in time an airport with planning permission for a new terminal will be an attractive proposition.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

My guess, it will depend on how quickly Galba get funding for a judicial review versus when the matter comes back to plans panel. In theory a judicial review can put an injunction on building work even after its started, but I doubt this will happen. The last thing we need is a judicial review as it could hold things up.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

This is Leeds remember!
a) On the bus
b) On the train via the Parkway
c) On a pushbike as no doubt by then they will have built a totally useless cycle lane to LBA.
d) in an electric taxi.

LCC don't want nasty cars or nasty car parks. The planning application says no increase planned in parking spaces overall.

Agree, WH. How can an airport go from 4 to 7 million realistically without additional parking. I guess the airport think they have enough to cope with any increase in pax numbers. I just don't think we will get to the MAN figure of getting 20 per cent arriving by train.

 

[Len Fish]

My guess, it will depend on how quickly Galba get funding for a judicial review versus when the matter comes back to plans panel. In theory a judicial review can put an injunction on building work even after its started, but I doubt this will happen. The last thing we need is a judicial review as it could hold things up.

In planning cases you have six weeks from the date of the decision in which to apply to the Court for permission for a Judicial Review to be held.

 

[White Heather]

Five more weeks to get through then. A good time to show how tight us Yorkshire folk are and give the treehuggers nowt. Let's hope Extinction Rebellion need a their money to fight Bristol and don't have enough left to fight LBA. Hence the crowdfunding efforts.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Yes, just looked, 6 weeks from decision date so the clock will start ticking once signed off post next planning meeting. Remember its not about the decision itself but about the process LCC followed. I'm not worried.

 

[Wardair166]

Even the GALBA .morons must realise the futility.

 

[White Heather]

Given the complexity of this and the length of the planning documents, and number of them, and knowing the cost of legal advice, it's hard to see £30k buying them more than legal advice as to whether they have a possible case and it would surely need someone who fully understands planning law .- not some mate who happens to work at a law firm or the University. And unlike their concocted stats about CO2, this time they need a genuine truthful opinion . The irony is that all their attempts to bog down the planning application are now likely to increase the cost of going through it all to see if there are any legal flaws. If there are, then it's a failure by the Planning Officer as it was known that this challenge would be made all along. They knew that the process has to be squeaky clean - hence all the delays.