Future Infrastructure Developments

[Aviador]

Not good enough, but will have to do im afraid!

It is largely out of LBA hands now although I do agree. As a region this shouldn't be acceptable. On the bright side at least something is happening and there's no reason why this can't be phase one of two or three phases to create a similar outstanding airport.

Longer term the current terminal building can't continue to be the primary facility for LBA. The airport needs a new terminal one way or another whatever the politician's are arguing about. Could the scrapped new terminal plans have been moved to a different location to avoid the greenbelt issue, we know the plans were essentially sound?

 

[LBA4EVER]

Perhaps with Liz expected to be the new PM and snivelling Gove out maybe LBA management could look into a new terminal? Im aware plans are underway on the extension but maybe this could be used as a temporary measure until we get a proper 21st century new terminal. The same actually happened at ALC airport, they built an extension then decided to build a whole new terminal.

 

[Aviador]

Perhaps with Liz expected to be the new PM and snivelling Gove out maybe LBA management could look into a new terminal? Im aware plans are underway on the extension but maybe this could be used as a temporary measure until we get a proper 21st century new terminal. The same actually happened at ALC airport, they built an extension then decided to build a whole new terminal.

Well I suppose if LBA can prove it can reach it's goal of 7mppa with the new arrivals and departures facility a new building could be possible to the East of the extension but incorporating the new extension. This was discussed previously but I think I removed the posts as they were sensitive during the terminal application process.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Well I suppose if LBA can prove it can reach it's goal of 7mppa with the new arrivals and departures facility a new building could be possible to the East of the extension but incorporating the new extension. This was discussed previously but I think I removed the posts as they were sensitive during the terminal application process.

Like you pointed out in your other post about TFS airport, the building and facilities at LBA are pretty appalling, its just totally unacceptable that leeds has an airport as we currently have! Any extension or reconfiguration of our existing terminal will NOT solve the issues LBA currently has, plus we will always have the bad stigma.
A fresh new start with a brand new terminal to the east was the only way our airport can really jump to the next level!

 

[Aviador]

Like you pointed out in your other post about TFS airport, the building and facilities at LBA are pretty appalling, its just totally unacceptable that leeds has an airport as we currently have! Any extension or reconfiguration of our existing terminal will NOT solve the issues LBA currently has, plus we will always have the bad stigma.
A fresh new start with a brand new terminal to the east was the only way our airport can really jump to the next level!

Not disagreeing with you but we are where we are and we have to accept that for the time being. The new arrivals hall and departure facility isn't world class, no but it could certainly form the initial phase of something much better. Imagine a secondary building to the East side of the new extension that is at least a similar size or bigger. I don't think we will get it though unless we can reach 7mppa first as it would justify the need for a new building without necessarily increasing passenger numbers further.

 

[Hendi]

Glad things are moving forward, It's not our new terminal no.. but its an extension we currently dont have, it will allow passenger numbers to grow while providing a better experience than what is currently on offer! Will it be enough to entice new airlines that we will have to wait and see. Its not state of the art that we were promised that was taken out of the airports hands by protesters/government but its the next best thing and we need to get used to it.. it could be worse it could just stay the same or worse come to the same fate as the airport just down the road.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Im still interested to see what happens as a result of the S106 review is submitted as the airport nears 5m pax. I know most of us are confident but I wont relax until its in the bag.

Im thinking it might be better for forward planning purposes for the airport to bring the review forward.

 

[blotbuc1]

Im still interested to see what happens as a result of the S106 review is submitted as the airport nears 5m pax. I know most of us are confident but I wont relax until its in the bag.

Im thinking it might be better for forward planning purposes for the airport to bring the review forward.

Statto clarified the S106 issue in #6251 -

It just says that if the airport needs to do anything eIse that requires express planning permission to help them get over 5M, they need to apply for planning permission in good time. But of course, they don't need to do anything else. I think I've posted the wording of that before if you look back in this thread somewhere.

The assumption is that with the approved extension and alterations to the internal layout of the existing terminal no further planning permissions will be required to achieve 7mpa.

 

[SierraHotel]

Correct, pp has already been secured to facilitate an uplift to 7m pax pa via the extension and restructure scheme

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Statto clarified the S106 issue in #6251 -

The assumption is that with the approved extension and alterations to the internal layout of the existing terminal no further planning permissions will be required to achieve 7mpa.

Not so. There is a requirement to review certain planning matters as throughput approaches 5m. Should be a formality but never take anything for granted. GALBAs stance suggests they have other ideas.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Correct, pp has already been secured to facilitate an uplift to 7m pax pa via the extension and restructure scheme

There is no upper limit set. The only constraint is the capacity of the (extended) terminal building.

 

[blotbuc1]

Not so. There is a requirement to review certain planning matters as throughput approaches 5m. Should be a formality but never take anything for granted. GALBAs stance suggests they have other ideas.

I understood that this related to already agreed financial contributions to public transport improvements and off-site highways improvements.

 

[Aviador]

I would think the fact GALBA have gone so quiet suggests they know they have been delt a huge own goal. They must surely be wishing they'd supported the new terminal plans now.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I understood that this related to already agreed financial contributions to public transport improvements and off-site highways improvements.

Im not sure of the details but I assume that in the application for the now ditched new terminal building they agreed to infrastructure improvements etc that would be appropriate for +5m passengers and it is these they will be expecting to be required to implement when the S106 review takes place. WH may know more.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I would think the fact GALBA have gone so quiet suggests they know they have been delt a huge own goal. They must surely be wishing they'd supported the new terminal plans now.

Dont you believe it!

 

[White Heather]

Im not sure of the details but I assume that in the application for the now ditched new terminal building they agreed to infrastructure improvements etc that would be appropriate for +5m passengers and it is these they will be expecting to be required to implement when the S106 review takes place. WH may know more.

The agreed terms relating to the new terminal went out the window when the terminal was axed. They don't apply. What makes you think they would have to implement terms relating to a new terminal that now won't be built?

The terms that will apply are surely those that relate to the 2019 extension and nothing more. As stated above and as stated on several occasions previously, there are no planning issues to resolve to reach 7m pax as long as there are no further schemes required to do so that require planning permission. That shouldn't be necessary.

If anything at all might be required, it might relate to works to create a proper two storey walkway with holding lounges to replace the existing temporary walkway. I suspect though that LBA may well defer such a scheme until they are already on their way towards 7m pax so they can demonstrate that the scheme doesn't relate to further expansion and is purely to increase efficiency.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I

The agreed terms relating to the new terminal went out the window when the terminal was axed. They don't apply. What makes you think they would have to implement terms relating to a new terminal that now won't be built?

The terms that will apply are surely those that relate to the 2019 extension and nothing more. As stated above and as stated on several occasions previously, there are no planning issues to resolve to reach 7m pax as long as there are no further schemes required to do so that require planning permission. That shouldn't be necessary.

If anything at all might be required, it might relate to works to create a proper two storey walkway with holding lounges to replace the existing temporary walkway. I suspect though that LBA may well defer such a scheme until they are already on their way towards 7m pax so they can demonstrate that the scheme doesn't relate to further expansion and is purely to increase efficiency.

As I said a couple of posts ago there is no passenger cap. I agree everything relevant to the new terminal has gone by the board.

However, on the basis the council approved the application which was for a terminal capable of handling 7m pax then you could expect them to require similar infrastructure improvements/subsidies when the S106s are reviewed approaching 5m. After all the airport have said they will move well above 5m when the terminal extension is completed.

 

[A400]

However, on the basis the council approved the application which was for a terminal capable of handling 7m pax then you could expect them to require similar infrastructure improvements/subsidies when the S106s are reviewed approaching 5m. After all the airport have said they will move well above 5m when the terminal extension is completed.

Or even a new terminal would have been nice. If only the people in charge of the decision actually made the right one!

 

[White Heather]

I
As I said a couple of posts ago there is no passenger cap. I agree everything relevant to the new terminal has gone by the board.

However, on the basis the council approved the application which was for a terminal capable of handling 7m pax then you could expect them to require similar infrastructure improvements/subsidies when the S106s are reviewed approaching 5m. After all the airport have said they will move well above 5m when the terminal extension is completed.

Infrastructure for 7m was included within S106 for the 2019 extension. That's what applies. The Council can't just impose new S106 requirements after the airport had already commenced work on the extension. Moving the goalposts isn't part of the planning process!

 

[blotbuc1]

Im not sure of the details but I assume that in the application for the now ditched new terminal building they agreed to infrastructure improvements etc that would be appropriate for +5m passengers and it is these they will be expecting to be required to implement when the S106 review takes place. WH may know more.

The agreed terms relating to the new terminal went out the window when the terminal was axed. They don't apply. What makes you think they would have to implement terms relating to a new terminal that now won't be built?

The terms that will apply are surely those that relate to the 2019 extension and nothing more. As stated above and as stated on several occasions previously, there are no planning issues to resolve to reach 7m pax as long as there are no further schemes required to do so that require planning permission. That shouldn't be necessary.

If anything at all might be required, it might relate to works to create a proper two storey walkway with holding lounges to replace the existing temporary walkway. I suspect though that LBA may well defer such a scheme until they are already on their way towards 7m pax so they can demonstrate that the scheme doesn't relate to further expansion and is purely to increase efficiency.

WH is correct -
S106 agreement forms part of a specific planning permission, in this case the 2019 permission for the terminal extension. I believe the agreement is essentially an update to the agreement signed as part of the permission for the infill extension which was commenced by carrying out groundworks so that it didn’t lapse. However, the agreement contains provisions that if the 2019 extension is commended (works have been carried out to safeguard its validity) then the infill permission lapses.

The Council can only enforce the terms of the 2019 permission and its S106 agreement it cannot require additional measures beyond the scope of the permission and agreement.