Leeds Bradford: Infrastructure & Construction Updates

[Aviador]

All very low key for the best part of £100m spend. I was hoping we would see more renders, especially of the arrival hall.

 

[Finger66]

Might have been a different story of there was specific mention of increased flights and pax numbers. It focuses on enhancing the pax experience which is a positive so very difficult to put a negative spin on that. And that extension is going to do exactly what it says on the tin - enhance the experience. Maybe, just maybe, the tide is a turning..........

 

[paully]

I'd love to know which pub Galba meet in...Be worth a couple of pints to watch those NIMBYs crying into theirs tonight

 

[White Heather]

All very low key for the best part of £100m spend. I was hoping we would see more renders, especially of the arrival hall.

Patience!

I'm sure they will come, but can you blame the airport for being slightly low key given the recent negativity ? They've made the announcement, I was told there would be fly through videos so they're probably to come, and they just need to get on with it now.

 

[B737]

All very low key for the best part of £100m spend. I was hoping we would see more renders, especially of the arrival hall.

There are some images of the arrivals hall in the interactive PDF on the website.

 

[JRP]

I'd love to know which pub Galba meet in...Be worth a couple of pints to watch those NIMBYs crying into theirs tonight

Probably one that’s next to a cycle lane as am sure they won’t have a noisy car, but I would join you in a pint or 2 watching them with there boxes of Kleenex

 

[leedslad]

As per the X25

Re-planning of the Passenger Search Area, and modelling to demonstrate capacity to manage 6.8 MPPA in line with the DfT 2024 compliance requirements.

Will the extension allow for 6.8m, or do they have to get new permission as GALBA suggest?

Edited by a moderator to remove deformation.

 

[White Heather]

It's on the YEP Facebook page and the nutjobs are out in force in the comments. Quicker to get to Liverpool from South Leeds apparently .. one woman said LBA would ' never be an International airport because if the runway'. Just pointed out we have around 75 International destinations.

Why is it that airports and LBA in particular seem to attract comments from people that seem to be just plain thick (that's me being polite by the way).

Will the extension allow for 6.8m, or do they have to get new permission as GALBA suggest?

Yes it does and no they dont need planning consent unless they need to build something else or make changes that need planning consent. They need to do neither to reconfigure the existing terminal inside and once that's done, the capacity is 6.8m.

More rubbish from the Unmentionables. A Leeds City Council Planning Officer confirmed no consent required a few years ago at a Consultative Meeting.

 

[leedslad]

The replies to every YEP article on Facebook on every topic are full of the dregs... It seems each poster seems to think we live under communism and the council builds and pays for everything. Usually they think that the money should be used to build homes for the homeless...

What are the group that shall not be named referring to then?! They must have something in mind...?

 

[White Heather]

The replies to every YEP article on Facebook-- on every topic are full of the dregs... It seems each poster seems to think we live under communism and the council builds and pays for everything. Usually they think that the money should be used to build homes for the homeless...

What are GALBA referring to then?! They must have something in mind...?

They are referring to the planning consent which as I recall said that LBA must seek planning approval as necessary if further works are required (above and beyond the extension) that require planning approval. They dont need to. The passenger throughput at LBA is not limited by any planning consent .

 

[HX3]

The renders look very good and the extension will provide much needed capacity. No one should complain at £100 million quid being invested into facilities, jobs and the local community.

 

[Aviador]

Please please, no swearing on this forum. It is not permitted. Any further G words and I will have to take forum disciplinary action.🤪

They are referring to the planning consent which as I recall said that LBA must seek planning approval as necessary if further works are required (above and beyond the extension) that require planning approval. They dont need to. The passenger throughput at LBA is not limited by any planning consent .

The same question was brought up during the planning process for the now cancelled terminal. The council officer said the airport was not subject to any limit in passengers and the only limit that existed was the physical limit of the terminal building. The same applies to the current building and the extended one.

 

[752]

I'm interested to see what/where/how many stands they're planning, be good to see a map of the apron

 

[leedslad]

Section 4.1/5 of the CITY PLANS PANEL COMMITTEE REPORT 06/12/18 states

"Within 12 months off annual passengers exceeding 4.5mppa a new planning application to be submitted with to facilitate passenger throughput to 5mppa"

18/06788/FU | Construction of a two/three storey extension to the main airport terminal building to provide an improved arrival hall, internal facilities including departure gates, retail and food and beverage outlets and new seating

publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk

However it's not entirely clear from the wording if that applied to the old/precious application.

 

[Aviador]

Well it was clear enough to those who wrote it in the first instance.

 

[JRP]

It was mentioned by looking at the planning in the committee report but nothing mentioned I can see in the full planning permission

 

[Aviador]

Specific thread for the REGEN programme now open. This thread can now be for discussions about future on site projects not covered by the REGEN programme

Discussions about the planned rail link and parkway can now also be placed here in this thread.

 

[Statto]

Section 4.1/5 of the CITY PLANS PANEL COMMITTEE REPORT 06/12/18 states

"Within 12 months off annual passengers exceeding 4.5mppa a new planning application to be submitted with to facilitate passenger throughput to 5mppa"

18/06788/FU | Construction of a two/three storey extension to the main airport terminal building to provide an improved arrival hall, internal facilities including departure gates, retail and food and beverage outlets and new seating

publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk

However it's not entirely clear from the wording if that applied to the old/precious application.

The exact wording in the S106 legal agreement is

No later than 12 months of the annual passenger throughput at the airport exceeding 4.5m, LBA shall submit a planning application together with full supporting information including a transport assessment, draft travel plan and heads of terms for a planning obligation for such further development at the airport requiring express planning permission as would be necessary to facilitate an annual passenger throughout in excess of 5m.

 

[Aviador]

The exact wording in the S106 legal agreement is

No later than 12 months of the annual passenger throughput at the airport exceeding 4.5m, LBA shall submit a planning application together with full supporting information including a transport assessment, draft travel plan and heads of terms for a planning obligation for such further development at the airport requiring express planning permission as would be necessary to facilitate an annual passenger throughout in excess of 5m.

So leaving the terminal development for the new thread. With regards to passenger growth and potential infrastructure changes necessary to facilitate that growth, how do you interpret the planning document? More specifically, what changes or information do you think that means?

 

[White Heather]

The exact wording in the S106 legal agreement is

No later than 12 months of the annual passenger throughput at the airport exceeding 4.5m, LBA shall submit a planning application together with full supporting information including a transport assessment, draft travel plan and heads of terms for a planning obligation for such further development at the airport requiring express planning permission as would be necessary to facilitate an annual passenger throughout in excess of 5m.

So it's a Section 106 requiring a planning submission for

'such further development at the airport requiring express planning permission, as would be necessary to facilitate an annual passenger throughput in excess of 5m.'

The internal reconfiguration and refurbishment does not require such planning approval unless it impacts on the external building appearance. That, together with the extension enables 6.8m pax per year. Therefore this specific S106 agreement doesn't seem to apply unless the works in phase 2 require planning approval which seems unlikely if it's internal.

It seems to me therefore that once again the Unmentionables are either deliberately or carelessly misreading the meaning of this agreement.