Future Infrastructure Developments

[752]

could in theory an off site car park expand like sentinel or a new one based somewhere? not ideal at all for the airport as it would be loss of revenue for them directly but could be an option?

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Doubt it, LCC will no doubt stick to this parking provision to try to encourage increase in public transport.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

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.

I agree the costs will quickly escalate. But if it puts this issue to bed for the last time then it might be worth just getting the judicial review out of the way as this is the last chance saloon for galba when ( not if) they lose. It will be held by a judge with specific expertise.

 

[rmac]

Maybe a multi-story carpark would be acceptable!

 

[Finger66]

Yes, but that’s another story altogether. Sorry I’ll get my coat!

 

[Aviador]

I think what was said at one of the plans panel meetings regarding car parking was the airport hoped not to require additional parking and it was going to be a last resort. As far as I am concerned that basically translates as over to you. As a bystander I honestly don't think it's up to the airport to sort out the transport problems of North West Leeds, that's the councils job. Planners decided to can the proposed link road which could have easily continued to Burley in Wharfedale and become a fully fledged bypass for the Aireborough area. Now they'll have to look at new ways to achieve the same outcome.

 

[Aviador]

Interestingly Leeds West Transport Forum (effectively an offshoot of GALBA or visa versa) were also against the Leeds Trollybus. It seems like these groups just oppose every transport upgrade. We'll choke on the fumes of our Victorian road system that was originally designed for horses before getting a decent public transport alternative.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Interestingly Leeds West Transport Forum (effectively an offshoot of GALBA or visa versa) were also against the Leeds Trollybus. It seems like these groups just oppose every transport upgrade. We'll choke on the fumes of our Victorian road system that was originally designed for horses before getting a decent public transport alternative.

How are they against this? Are they actually for real?

I suspect they are saying that the amount of carbon it will produce during building stage will not be offset by fully operational? What I don't get is that they are saying this with knowledge that the analysis of usage is always always conservative. Reality is if Leeds got a decent Trollybus/Transit system it would be at capacity already. I know for one where I live, the buses are decent ish, but a more affordable quicker Tram was built I would walk to use it.

 

[Aviador]

How are they against this? Are they actually for real?

I suspect they are saying that the amount of carbon it will produce during building stage will not be offset by fully operational? What I don't get is that they are saying this with knowledge that the analysis of usage is always always conservative. Reality is if Leeds got a decent Trollybus/Transit system it would be at capacity already. I know for one where I live, the buses are decent ish, but a more affordable quicker Tram was built I would walk to use it.

If you look at the GALBA site you don't have to look far before tripping on the North West Leeds Transport Forum. If you drag up old planning documents or bumph from them you'll see all the same tripe about the Trollybus instead of LBA. I liken them to the political equivalent of The European Research Group who weren't in the slightest interested in Europe, far from it.

 

[White Heather]

could in theory an off site car park expand like sentinel or a new one based somewhere? not ideal at all for the airport as it would be loss of revenue for them directly but could be an option?

Not without planning consent - which probably wouldn't be given.

 

[Aviador]

Not without planning consent - which probably wouldn't be given.

Nothing to stop a company offering a park and ride from Bradford controlled council areas such as Apperley Bridge.

 

[White Heather]

Read an interesting article earlier -relating to the 3rd runway at LHR. Some may remember that the anti airport lot appealed the approval through the Appeals Court and won, on the grounds the decision didn't comply with the Paris Agreement. The same grounds quoted by our local treehuggers. However, it went to the Supreme Court and the appeal was overturned in favour of LHR - potentially significant legal precedent.

Even more interesting is that the anti airport lot used an anti airport Barrister to fight their case . The Supreme Court decision was circulated in advance of publication with those notified, including this Barrister, told to say nothing and if they did, they could face contempt of court charges. Said barrister ignored that and leaked the decision. He is now to be prosecuted for Contempt of Court and faces a potential spell in HMP.

The pattern here is that these groups seem to think that the law doesn't apply to them and nor do they recognise democracy. As I said yesterday, these groups are a danger to society. Any group is, that thinks that they are above the law.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how GALBA proceed given that the Supreme Court overturned the LHR decision so presumably took the view the 3rd runway, which could lead to a doubling of annual passengers to 136m, either did not breach the Paris Agreement or had at least taken that into account when the original decision was taken.

 

[Aviador]

If anything, what we are seeing in the UK is largely a renewal of infrastructure already in place rather than new airports. In the wider part of the forum we have a new thread about worldwide airport expansion. Those proposed by UK airports amount to a drop in the ocean compared with places like the U.S, India, China and Africa. One of the many new Chinese airports which is to open later this year is hoping to cater for 40 million passengers from the onset. In 2019 Beijing opened new Daxing International Airport which has the world's largest single terminal designed to handle more than 100 million passengers annually. Those are just two new airports of hundreds planned for China. Even if the UK closed all it's airports it would be a futile environmentally and economically.

 

[White Heather]

The growth proposed by LBA is also one if the smallest of any airport in the UK in terms of passenger increase and dwarfed by most airports.

 

[Len Fish]

Maybe a multi-story carpark would be acceptable!

That’s wrong on so many levels. The old ones are the best ones!

 

[White Heather]

A multi storey would only lead to the opposition groups ramping up their objections!

 

[rmac]

I meant when numbers were up towards the 7 million mark and extra space was needed. Rather than dig up more grass build on the existing car park space.

 

[White Heather]

I meant when numbers were up towards the 7 million mark and extra space was needed. Rather than dig up more grass build on the existing car park space.

I know - we are just having some fun with words again. Ramping up, so many levels....both connected to Multi Storey Car Parks.
It's a valid idea but as it would impact visually on the green belt I suspect it would get a big fat no from the planners.

 

[ls27]

Wasn't the original plan for the car park opposite the terminal front that was lowered so that it could become a multi storey car park in the future.

 

[Mick_LUFC]

There's been a few plans for the short stay lower bowl over the years. At least one deck parking scheme muted.