Leeds Bradford Airport’s Expansion Plans Under Public Inquiry

[BCFC]

Not a single runway has been built in Britain since 2001, when Manchester Airport's second runway was completed.

Not building a single new runway anywhere in the country in a quarter century is a rejection of growth and an embrace of decline.

 

[Aviador]

Not a single runway has been built in Britain since 2001, when Manchester Airport's second runway was completed.

Not building a single new runway anywhere in the country in a quarter century is a rejection of growth and an embrace of decline.

Not sure we currently need any more runways as we can't fully utilise the ones we have.

 

[lbaspotter]

Not sure we currently need any more runways as we can't fully utilise the ones we have.

Have you not been to Heathrow or Gatwick recently?

Heathrow’s 2 runways are currently full to capacity and needs that 3rd runway, but if approved the should be a compromise that more UK domestic routes have access to some of those new slots

Same with Gatwick if it gets the go ahead to fully utilise its current standby 2nd runway full time.

 

[LBA4EVER]

The Tech Tavern could be another one!

Perhaps we actually do have an idea here as we could create an LS 733 bar as part of our desired redevelopment of Plane Tree Hill into an official viewing area. Now of course we know that won't happen but would be a sure fire way to gather more support for LBA in these challenging times.

Funny you mention about creating a plane as a bar as me and a mate were on about the same thing, my mates a keen train spotter and loves his class 153s, so the c153 would be the starting point bar then the main nightclub would be the aircraft, ideally id want something pretty big so boeing 757 or larger would be ideal, B757/767/A300/B747, something old school what we all love! Surprised something like this has not been done in this country unless im missing somewhere?

 

[Finger66]

Well it's time you got your Class 153 train bar on track! I am certainly siding with you on that one

 

[gcoabc1]

Well it's time you got your Class 153 train bar on track! I am certainly siding with you on that one

At the risk of getting my wrists slapped I am opting out of this mis - threading before things go off the rails

 

[BCFC]

Not sure we currently need any more runways as we can't fully utilise the ones we have.

Ask Gatwick and I’m pretty sure they would like one.

 

[Aviador]

Two quotes - I'm doing well! I thought it was fairly clear I was just generalising. Of course I'm aware of what's happening at Heathrow and Gatwick but other than that the UK as a whole has tons of unused capacity.

 

[Len Fish]

Especially at DSA!

 

[Aviador]

Especially at DSA!

I actually meant out of the ones already open not ones closed due lack of business.

 

[GolfFox]

True - but is there any airport in the country that doesn’t operate with S106 restrictions? I don’t think anywhere has a blank cheque to operate on an unrestricted basis or without ensuring that they make a contribution to public transport etc.

So I think its about updating them and making sure they make sense for the 2030s and not the 1990s. Night flying restrictions that were designed in an era when DC9s, BAC 1-11s and TU-154s we’re at the airport are probably well overdue a review. There are all sorts of approaches to noise mitigation that could be taken that are far more sophisticated than what we have today

Yes - the whole system needs a re-vamp in my opinion towards the system used by most major airports with a points budget (apparently allocated by DfT) and deductions from that depending upon the quota count value of the aircraft which allows some flexibility rather than the current hard and fast interpretation of the

Finger trouble! To continue: maximum number of movements. It's a National system and therefore might be easier (?) to agree because of that than trying to agree an increased quota or a reduction as to what constitutes 'night time' with LCC which will incur much resistance from the anti airport lot. It is a pity that this issue was left unactioned for years with the result that the airport is in the situation it is in today. Negotiating a complete change of system might (or might not) enable the can to be kicked down the road whilst negotiations are taking place.
For sure there are those hell bent on ensuring that the number of night movements reduced below the current number but with a 'National' system might have less influence than they seem to have locally?

 

[Finger66]

Finger trouble! To continue:

Wasnt aware I had ever upset you @GolfFox
LCC need to be made fully aware the damage this could do to the local economy and Yorkshire's gateway itself if common sense doesn't prevail.
My concern with that statement though is that LCC and common sense are not something freely used in the same sentence

 

[BCFC]

Wasnt aware I had ever upset you @GolfFox
LCC need to be made fully aware the damage this could do to the local economy and Yorkshire's gateway itself if common sense doesn't prevail.
My concern with that statement though is that LCC and common sense are not something freely used in the same sentence

Dont think I have ever seen LCC and common sense together, what does it mean?

 

[White Heather]

Dont think I have ever seen LCC and common sense together, what does it mean?

Perhaps LCC approving the new terminal and changing the day/night hours as requested by LBA was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the previous terminal expansion, which has just been built, was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the 2009 terminal extension which Bridgepoint Capital subsequently abandoned, was common sense?

And perhaps LCC listening to the majority and approving 24 hour ops in 1994 was common sense?

The only bit that really wasn't was in doing so they applied day/night hours that were different to competing airports and wrote the planning approval in such a way that it's meaning was unclear. But that was then. LCC policy has been supportive of LBA for many years now. Remember that at no time did they enforce the night movements until they were forced to do so by the NIMBY group. Whether they really want to or not, LCC are required to enforce planning conditions. I think you'll find thst the NIMBY group are seen as a right pain in the arse by LCC just as much as by LBA.

I really don't get the constant issue with the council relative to the airport, when despite declaring a climate emergency, despite being leaned on by the 5 Leeds Labour MPs, and despite the NIMBY lot, they approved Project Sky and everything before that. In fact they haven't opposed any airport development since the 1980s!

 

[ChrisBBB]

Perhaps LCC approving the new terminal and changing the day/night hours as requested by LBA was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the previous terminal expansion, which has just been built, was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the 2009 terminal extension which Bridgepoint Capital subsequently abandoned, was common sense?

And perhaps LCC listening to the majority and aporoving 24 hour ops in 1994 was common sense?

The only bit that really wasn't was in doing so they applied day/night hours that were different to competing airports and wrote the planning approval in such a way that it's meaning was unclear. But that was then. LCC policy has been supportive of LBA for many years now. Remember that at no time did they enforce the night movements until they were forced to do so by the NIMBY group. Whether they really want to or not, LCC are required to enforce planning conditions. I think you'll find thst the NIMBY group are seen as a right pain in the arse by LCC just as much as LBA.

I really don't get the constant issue with the council relative to the airport, when despite declaring a climate emergency, despite being leaned on by the 5 Leeds Labour MPs, and despite the NIMBY lot, they approved Project Sky and everything before that. In fact they haven't opposed any airport development since the 1980s!

Assuming we submit another application re night time operating / hours, and LCC were to approve it.
If there were appeals by whoever (if indeed anyone can appeal), how long can that drag on, years, as always seems to be the case?
And could we continue operating as we interpret until a final outcome is achieved?

I’m just interested what the process and roadmap would involve if we submitted another application re application to amend flying hours

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Perhaps LCC approving the new terminal and changing the day/night hours as requested by LBA was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the previous terminal expansion, which has just been built, was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the 2009 terminal extension which Bridgepoint Capital subsequently abandoned, was common sense?

And perhaps LCC listening to the majority and aporoving 24 hour ops in 1994 was common sense?

The only bit that really wasn't was in doing so they applied day/night hours that were different to competing airports and wrote the planning approval in such a way that it's meaning was unclear. But that was then. LCC policy has been supportive of LBA for many years now. Remember that at no time did they enforce the night movements until they were forced to do so by the NIMBY group. Whether they really want to or not, LCC are required to enforce planning conditions. I think you'll find thst the NIMBY group are seen as a right pain in the arse by LCC just as much as LBA.

I really don't get the constant issue with the council relative to the airport, when despite declaring a climate emergency, despite being leaned on by the 5 Leeds Labour MPs, and despite the NIMBY lot, they approved Project Sky and everything before that. In fact they haven't opposed any airport development since the 1980s!

All true. Ive defended LCC on here on multiple occasions but the message doesnt seem to get through!

Assuming we submit another application re night time operating / hours, and LCC were to approve it.
If there were appeals by whoever (if indeed anyone can appeal), how long can that drag on, years, as always seems to be the case?
And could we continue operating as we interpret until a final outcome is achieved?

I’m just interested what the process and roadmap would involve if we submitted another application re application to amend flying hours

If it was a building erected not in compliance with planning regulations then I think it would be allowed to remain until all appeals were exhausted. Maybe that is the case here.

I think the airport would be 'happy' to pay fines, but if an enforcement order isnt complied with the CEO could end up with a criminal record (correct me if Im wrong) and I cant see him accepting that.

As I said previously, the airport have 6 weeks from the inspectors decision to appeal (I think a judicial review is now the only option) so we should find out soon enough if they are going down this route.

These are good questions to ask at the Monday (Bramhope) and Wednesday (Otley) community events, or indeed any of the subsequent ones.

 

[Snackbar]

Perhaps LCC approving the new terminal and changing the day/night hours as requested by LBA was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the previous terminal expansion, which has just been built, was common sense?

Perhaps LCC approving the 2009 terminal extension which Bridgepoint Capital subsequently abandoned, was common sense?

And perhaps LCC listening to the majority and aporoving 24 hour ops in 1994 was common sense?

The only bit that really wasn't was in doing so they applied day/night hours that were different to competing airports and wrote the planning approval in such a way that it's meaning was unclear. But that was then. LCC policy has been supportive of LBA for many years now. Remember that at no time did they enforce the night movements until they were forced to do so by the NIMBY group. Whether they really want to or not, LCC are required to enforce planning conditions. I think you'll find thst the NIMBY group are seen as a right pain in the arse by LCC just as much as LBA.

I really don't get the constant issue with the council relative to the airport, when despite declaring a climate emergency, despite being leaned on by the 5 Leeds Labour MPs, and despite the NIMBY lot, they approved Project Sky and everything before that. In fact they haven't opposed any airport development since the 1980s!

Just to add in defence of LCC their current planning policy is to support the airport. What though is very difficult to understand is the actions of some local Councillor’s and MPs whose actions are to obstruct LBA at every move it makes - they seem to be out of kilter with the Councils own planning policy or the view of the majority in the local area…..

 

[White Heather]

Just to add in defence of LCC their current planning policy is to support the airport. What though is very difficult to understand is the actions of some local Councillor’s and MPs whose actions are to obstruct LBA at every move it makes - they seem to be out of kilter with the Councils own planning policy or the view of the majority in the local area…..

Total agreement there. But the Council is Labour run. Some of the Councillors who actively opposed the airport are not Labour. Most are Lib Dem so will quite happily oppose the Labour policy, seemingly safe in the knowledge that despite opposing LBA, they'll still be re-elected as the airport isn't something that influences voting for most people (unlike me!!).

 

[Len Fish]

“There is no third-party right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if a planning permission is granted.

However, if a third party considers that the planning permission was granted unlawfully, and due procedure was not followed they can challenge the decision through a judicial review in court. The judicial review process can only consider the lawfulness of the procedure that the Local Planning Authority took in coming to the decision to grant planning permission, it is not to consider the planning merits of the case”.
Also-“Calling in" a planning application, in the context of planning permission, refers to the Secretary of State (or in some cases, the Local Planning Authority) taking over the decision-making process for a planning application, rather than the local authority making the decision.
Anyone can request that a planning application be called in, though the Secretary of State makes the final decision”.
All sounds very familiar.

 

[Finger66]

Sorry but no defence of LCC in my eyes. If they had some b***s LBA wouldn't be in this mess, so regardless of what they have and haven't supported previously it doesn't take away from where we are now. Point proven by it's easier to hear an ATR than it is a Max so no common sense at all