Future Infrastructure Developments

[LBAYORKIE]

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!

I stand corrected.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

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.

Ok, so the S106s were effecticvely agreed agreed in advance and set out in the 2019 application. The review approaching 5m is simply to read through them again.

 

[blotbuc1]

Ok, so the S106s were effecticvely agreed agreed in advance and set out in the 2019 application. The review approaching 5m is simply to read through them again.

Yes, the planning permission doesn’t exist/isn’t issued until the S106 is agreed and signed by the Council and the applicant. Most agreements include thresholds, or dates by which works have to be carried out or financial payments made.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Yes, the planning permission doesn’t exist/isn’t issued until the S106 is agreed and signed by the Council and the applicant. Most agreements include thresholds, or dates by which works have to be carried out or financial payments made.

Thanks, thats clear now. Hopefully its cleared things up for others too.

 

[Aviador]

Nobody commented on the changes proposed in the latest application update.

I have noticed the airport has taken onboard what I said originally in that the immigration queue needed to be at the opposite side on the new building to create a better flow for passengers ie. In one end and out the other without passengers going back on the flow.

This was the old plan.

New revised plan...

 

[Aviador]

Also further to my post earlier where I said at least the new arrivals and departure facilities *could* form the basis for a new terminal in the future. It's not ideal but it would be a way of achieving the same goal as the now cancelled new terminal.

1. Arrivals facility with first floor departure lounge and gates.
2 Check-in with first floor departure lounge and gates.
3. New replacement walkway with holding lounges
4 Extended arrivals facility with new walkway and holding lounges.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Plus i can see 4 extra parking stands with the 1960s terminal gone, good image and some forward thinking there using the best of what we have! It would look cleaner on the eye and give a more modern look.
I think you need to submit those plans to airport management!

 

[Aviador]

Plus i can see 4 extra parking stands with the 1960s terminal gone, good image and some forward thinking there using the best of what we have! It would look cleaner on the eye and give a more modern look.
I think you need to submit those plans to airport management!

The above vision essentially allows the current piecemeal terminal to be demolished eventually. The new replacement can be as glitzy as the airport decides at the time. There's no reason why we still can't have a large glass fronted check-in hall.

 

[LBA4EVER]

The above vision essentially allows the current piecemeal terminal to be demolished eventually. The new replacement can be as glitzy as the airport decides at the time. There's no reason why we still can't have a large glass fronted check-in hall.

We can have large glass fronted check in hall because like at the eastern end of the apron the land drops away in this spot too.

 

[SierraHotel]

Is anyone able to clarify the layout of the terminal post extension including how the current terminal will be reconfigured?

 

[White Heather]

Is anyone able to clarify the layout of the terminal post extension including how the current terminal will be reconfigured?

It's all under review, but, my understanding is that the new extension will include a large passport control srea and large baggage reclaim area on the ground floor (3 double size carousels were included in the original plans) with the entire upper floor of the extension being departures seating and associated commercial outlets, plus a couple of new departure gates.

What they plan to do with the existing terminal is yet to be confirmed, but the original plan was to convert the existing baggage reclaim into security screening, and the current security screening into an enlarged check in area. ( Check in hall A).

 

[SierraHotel]

It's all gone very quiet on the LBA Parkway station front. Is this yet another non materialising LBA scheme? Yours cynically.

 

[White Heather]

It's all gone very quiet on the LBA Parkway station front. Is this yet another non materialising LBA scheme? Yours cynically.

Last time we had an update, it was at detailed design stage. It's obviously a rather long stage!! They did buy the land to provide the access road though and the money was said to ring fenced.

I wonder what our esteemed Mayor thinks about it? I seem to recall her expressing support and would hope that approval being given for a station at a potentially non existent DSA might give her a gentle reminder to pull her finger out and get it done!

 

[SierraHotel]

China would have had this built and fully operational by now. The length infrastructure projects take to materialise in the UK beggars belief.

 

[SNOWMAN]

2 new stations to be built at white rose and thorp park (springs)
sm

 

[White Heather]

2 new stations to be built at white rose and thorp park (springs)
sm

Yes, as well as LBA Parkway, not instead of. The estimated date for the Parkway opening was around 2026 from memory.

 

[Len Fish]

China would have had this built and fully operational by now. The length infrastructure projects take to materialise in the UK beggars belief.

The difference being that when something is in the way we consult, which can take years, the Chinese just bulldoze.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

The difference being that when something is in the way we consult, which can take years, the Chinese just bulldoze.

Mot that different from the French approach though.

 

[LBA4EVER]

The difference being that when something is in the way we consult, which can take years, the Chinese just bulldoze.

Same with the spanish too! Some great infrastructure over there.

 

[SierraHotel]

Planning application in ref. 22/9/00186/MOD.

Non-material amendment proposing alterations to the internal configuration of the building.


Approved by LCC 24/08/22.