Future Infrastructure Developments

[Heathrowflyer]

How long will all this take now, that's what I don't understand? It seems a simple decision.

 

[White Heather]

For clarity, the terminal development is not in the green belt. It's within the airport boundary and built in what is currently apron space. It had to be signed off though as it's in a prominent position and visible from the nearby green belt. Any such building exceeding 1000m2 requires approval by Jenrick.

 

[Hendi]

Yes aviador the masses as in all the climate warriors and nimbys nationwide... yes local people will object and rightly so if it affects them noise etc but I've seen people far and wide no where near the airport object to this on the councils planning portal, and god knows who and from where will have wrote to the sos when it will have little impact on them crying climate change when as you say other countries and even the airport over the hill expand affecting the climate anyway!! Stopping little old leeds is rather pointless when countries are smashing out 100 or so airports in the coming years

 

[JRP]

If I was AMP I would say if we can’t build this we will continue with the already started extensions and stick 2 fingers up at all the local politicians and have 7 million passengers

 

[Aviador]

At a fraction of the cost.

 

[Aviador]

View media item 9874View media item 9875

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The secretary of state will only usually call in a planning application if the application conflicts with national policy in important ways, or is nationally significant. Recent Conservative government secretaries of state have usually been reluctant to interfere, preferring to leave the decision in local hands.

Jenrick was made to look foolish with his about-turn in the Cumbria coal mine case so might be ensuring he covers his backside this time by seeming to take more care over the LBA application. On its own it's difficult to see how the LBA application is nationally significant, although if taken with other airports that are in various stages of expansion plan applications (I realise LBA is not an expansion per se as the airport already has planning permission for a less environmentally-friendly expansion) it could be argued that it is part of a nationally significant movement.

The government's transport decarbonisation plan is due to be published later this year and the minister could be waiting for that, so that it would be less likely that subsequent legal challenges could argue successfully that he didn't wait for the government's strategy on the subject to be decided upon.

Greenpeace reckons that the government is "starting to clock the catastrophic impacts of this proposed expansion" and that "we're just months away from hosting critical global climate talks, and this climate-wrecking mega project is clearly incompatible with our plans to cut emissions, so why only delay the decision and not just call it in now?"

Anyone who believes that the LBA application would lead to 'catastrophic effects' and it is a 'climate-wrecking mega project' really has lost the plot. What do they think the hundreds of planned airports - much bigger than LBA - in countries such as China and India are?

 

[Bigman]

If they really do give a monkeys about what happens North of the Watford Gap, just get on with HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. Get electrifying railway lines and get rid of the gas guzzling environmentally damaging diesels, and get cars off the roads. Now that's what makes a massive difference to the environment, not a few extra flights a day at LBA which are miniscule in comparison.

 

[Wardair166]

Decision delayed on controversial airport development

A DECISION on a £150 million development plan for Leeds Bradford Airport has been delayed.

www.yorkpress.co.uk

 

[Coathanger16]

Sadly the environmental lobby don't make any distinction between the size of different airport proposals - any airport development is bad for the environment in their view.

I was reading yesterday about plans in Norway to build 3 "new" airports. I say "new" as one would basically be rebuilt and a second would see an existing airport with a short runway replaced by one with a longer runway (the current short one isn't long enough for aircraft to fly non-stop to Oslo). The third airport would serve an island community. Yet an environmental group insisted it was bad for the environment and that recent surveys suggest less people will travel after the pandemic so the airports aren't needed. Yet these are exactly the kind of airports that will see the first electric airliners in the next decade, so by 2030 and new flights would at worst be net-zero.

As for LBA, and sadly for the entire sector, I've been getting the feeling over the last 12-18 months that we're seeing the end of any airport expansions/developments in this country. With the growing pressure from the green lobby, and with the Climate Change Conference being held in Glasgow later this year, the government feel (rightly or wrongly) any approval of airport expansion would be viewed negatively on the international stage and would undermine the "fight against climate change".

A part of me also things this is political in the sense of saving Boris. It's well known that Boris is against Heathrow expanding, and with the courts recently overturning the legal action taken against LHR's third runway, there is currently no legal barrier to expanding Heathrow. By having a national "no airport expansion" policy, it allows Boris to duck the issue of deciding on Heathrow as it wouldn't just be Heathrow that was denied expansion.

As for local elections I would encourage everyone to look at the bigger picture. As someone who worked in the aviation industry pre-pandemic, aviation is a huge part of my life, however it is not all of my life. Whilst a candidates view on aviation is important, I would encourage everyone to also consider where each candidate stands on all the other issues that impact your lives.

 

[Bigman]

Everyone is jumping on the climate bandwagon now. Noticed on the BBC website this morning that the RAC are criticising urban people for buying SUV’s to go and do their shopping. About time someone flagged this serous issue. So, maybe not just aviation that is under the spotlight right now. We have already had that Cumbrian coal mine plan called in by the SoS because of environmental concerns. Jobs don’t seem to matter any more.

I really wouldn’t hold out much hope for any sort of ‘expansion’ at any UK airfield other than just the big boys, which they can justify as trans-continental gateways into the UK. HS2 will improve UK access to Manchester, Birmingham and Heathrow (via Old Oak Common Interchange), and North Powerhouse Rail is pretty much focused on Manchester Airport too. Donny will be fine because of its heavy emphasis on international freight, as will East Midlands. The likes of LBA, LPL, MME and NCL might not have such a positive future I fear.

 

[a300boy]

The people making the decisions are either retired or being paid from the system and jobs are not a problem for them.
I wonder if they have kids or grandchildren but then again they will probably get them jobs it the system too.

 

[Jerry]

The people making the decisions are either retired or being paid from the system and jobs are not a problem for them.
I wonder if they have kids or grandchildren but then again they will probably get them jobs it the system too.

Oh I've no doubt behind the scenes there'll be all sorts of people lobbying for and against but it does seem a little odd that a government goes on about Global Britain doesn't seem keen on better global connections.

 

[blotbuc1]

For clarity, the terminal development is not in the green belt. It's within the airport boundary and built in what is currently apron space. It had to be signed off though as it's in a prominent position and visible from the nearby green belt. Any such building exceeding 1000m2 requires approval by Jenrick.

Not correct WH, paragraph 45 of the report to the City Plans Panel on 11th February states - “ The whole of the Airport is washed over by Green Belt but is also located within the Airport operational land boundary.” Paragraphs 124-136 of the report set out the Green Belt policy issues to be considered when assessing the development which is located in the Green Belt. It had to be referred to the SoS because of the size of the development within the Green Belt.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Could LBA do the extra flying hours if the new terminal is delayed as this is what would be attractive to airlines too...getting an extra rotation in reduces economies of scale and maxes their asset ( that is, the plane)?

 

[LBA4EVER]

Everyone is jumping on the climate bandwagon now. Noticed on the BBC website this morning that the RAC are criticising urban people for buying SUV’s to go and do their shopping. About time someone flagged this serous issue. So, maybe not just aviation that is under the spotlight right now. We have already had that Cumbrian coal mine plan called in by the SoS because of environmental concerns. Jobs don’t seem to matter any more.

I really wouldn’t hold out much hope for any sort of ‘expansion’ at any UK airfield other than just the big boys, which they can justify as trans-continental gateways into the UK. HS2 will improve UK access to Manchester, Birmingham and Heathrow (via Old Oak Common Interchange), and North Powerhouse Rail is pretty much focused on Manchester Airport too. Donny will be fine because of its heavy emphasis on international freight, as will East Midlands. The likes of LBA, LPL, MME and NCL might not have such a positive future I fear.

tell me about it, the bbc with its SUV story, although i do part agree, whats wrong with a ford fiesta! typical bbc even have have a program next week dedicated to greta thunberg, she just needs to stop been used by her parents and get to school! so when the local councillors start knocking on our doors the first question that needs to be asked is whats your views on the modernisation plans for LBA, if they are against then just slam the door in their face!

 

[White Heather]

Not correct WH, paragraph 45 of the report to the City Plans Panel on 11th February states - “ The whole of the Airport is washed over by Green Belt but is also located within the Airport operational land boundary.” Paragraphs 124-136 of the report set out the Green Belt policy issues to be considered when assessing the development which is located in the Green Belt. It had to be referred to the SoS because of the size of the development within the Green Belt.

Better tell LBA that then as I am repeating what was said at the last Consultative Committee. How on Earth can the airport itself be Green Belt? Makes no sense.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Just saw online , 19 people at LCC are paid over 100k, glad that public money is being spent so wisely....hopefully head honcho of transport infrastructure and cycle lanes is being renumerated handsomely!!!!!

 

[LBA4EVER]

so can someone just explain what will happen now, its all beyond me? is there a timescale or is it literally all up in the air?

 

[Heathrowflyer]

From what I've read subsequently I think it will hinge on these nationwide aviation policies due out later this year, but given covid, don't be surprised if the findings are delayed again.