Leeds Bradford - General Thread

[Aviador]

You really can’t just blame the ongoing construction work, the fact you the is no planned replacement for the Smoking area will mean you get idols liting up there fags and trying to get away with it.

I for one am pleased it’s not coming back.l and I hope the airport comes down hard on those that try to break the rules/laws

I'm just saying what happened during the previous large scale refurbishment. Back then it wasn't people smoking that caused smoke alarm activations. You'd be surprised how dusty it gets.

I don't disagree on the smoking though. People know you can't smoke on a plane. Smoking in public areas has been banned / made illegal for sometime. You can't smoke in places like train stations so why would anyone think it's OK at an airport? It really shouldn't come as a surprise when travelling.

 

[gcoabc1]

I'm just saying what happened during the previous large scale refurbishment. Back then it wasn't people smoking that caused smoke alarm activations. You'd be surprised how dusty it gets.

I don't disagree on the smoking though. People know you can't smoke on a plane. Smoking in public areas has been banned / made illegal for sometime. You can't smoke in places like train stations so why would anyone think it's OK at an airport? It really shouldn't come as a surprise when travelling.

I couldn’t agree more and, at the risk of upsetting someone,

; just find out what paperwork you need for the journey/holiday
; airport protocols and procedures,
; Security process/restriction on items
; facilities available.

Stop moaning about drop off car parking fees which means you are likely to imbibe 1 less drink at the airport or holiday.

It’s all available on line for all to see before you book your trip.

 

[Seasider]

.....

I don't disagree on the smoking though. People know you can't smoke on a plane. Smoking in public areas has been banned / made illegal for sometime. You can't smoke in places like train stations so why would anyone think it's OK at an airport? It really shouldn't come as a surprise when travelling.

I want a smoke, so I'm going to have one. Just another example of people's lack of consideration of others.

 

[White Heather]

Hear, hear.

It's not just smoke and dust. Using aerosols such as hair sprays and deodorants in the vicinity of smoke alarms may trigger an alarm. Then of course there is the deliberate breakage of fire alarm glass panels through mischief and sheer stupidity.

 

[leedslad]

Interesting

States the airport IS bound by a cap below 7m without Planning Permission.

Opportunity to comment on plan.

https://leedslocalplan.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/v3/leeds-bradford-airport?step=step1

 

[White Heather]

Interesting

States the airport IS bound by a cap below 7m without Planning Permission.

Opportunity to comment on plan.

https://leedslocalplan.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/v3/leeds-bradford-airport?step=step1

Well firstly, that's totally contrary to what a LCC planning department told the ACC. He said LBA had no passenger growth restrictions. LBA have said the same on numerous occasions.

Important to note though that this is relating to S106 requirements and off site road developments, so assuming it's correct then beyond 4.5m pax, LBA will have to pay for road improvements a specified by S106. That doesn't mean they can't go beyond the limit, just that to do so they have to cough up for works the council would normally have to do, if they could be bothered. Which clearly they cant. Perhaps now we know why!

 

[Aviador]

Written by GALBA on behalf of Leeds City Council?

 

[Snackbar]

Interesting

States the airport IS bound by a cap below 7m without Planning Permission.

Opportunity to comment on plan.

https://leedslocalplan.commonplace.is/en-GB/proposals/v3/leeds-bradford-airport?step=step1

The statements about local planning policy is fairly irrelevant anyway…. National planning policy in respect of airport would override it any way whatever LCC put in and that is currently in favour of airport of expansion. Labour have stated they have no intention to change that so as usual LCC are out of touch!
As to the comments about sustainable travel the airport - well if the Clowncil and combined authority actually did their job and deliver the rail link that may be possible - it’s ridiculous to say they will encourage sustainable travel to LBA and not deliver a solution - do they expect passengers to go by bike!!

 

[Aviador]

Do they expect passengers to go by bike!!

Yes.

 

[lbaspotter]

Can anyone remember if the planning application for the terminal extension that’s just been built had any s106 agreements with LCC when they granted full approval for it back in 2019?

 

[Snackbar]

Yes.

Unfortunately you’re probably right!

 

[White Heather]

Can anyone remember if the planning application for the terminal extension that’s just been built had any s106 agreements with LCC when they granted full approval for it back in 2019?

No, but knowing LCC there probably are some. I'd be amazed if they didn't seize the opportunity to get something done at the airports expense.

 

[leedslad]

It'll be on the plans portal if anyone can be bothered looking.

@White Heather is it worth pointing out this statement online to the airport and asking the council amend it?

 

[White Heather]

It'll be on the plans portal if anyone can be bothered looking.

@White Heather is it worth pointing out this statement online to the airport and asking the council amend it?

Not sure what you mean exactly about LBA asking the Council to amend it. However, for what it's worth, I've already sent it to LBA asking for their views and comments, particularly as they are already at 4.3m pax per year. Its weird LCC are saying 4.5m pax p.a because I'm pretty sure the reference within the planning approval was 5m, and that a planning application needed submitting for any further works to enable growth beyond that. Such an application isnt needed given phase 2 of the terminal works are all internal. So this must, I suspect, be about Section 106 requirements attached to that approval.

 

[Len Fish]

Planning and Leeds City Clowncil don’t sit comfortably together.

 

[leedslad]

Not sure what you mean exactly about LBA asking the Council to amend it. However, for what it's worth, I've already sent it to LBA asking for their views and comments, particularly as they are already at 4.3m pax per year. Its weird LCC are saying 4.5m pax p.a because I'm pretty sure the reference within the planning approval was 5m, and that a planning application needed submitting for any further works to enable growth beyond that. Such an application isnt needed given phase 2 of the terminal works are all internal. So this must, I suspect, be about Section 106 requirements attached to that approval.

Well the council page I linked (so an official statement by the council if you will) which will be read by many is offering misleading or incorrect info? Shouldn't the airport be telling the council to change to statements on that page?

 

[White Heather]

Well the council page I linked (so an official statement by the council if you will) which will be read by many is offering misleading or incorrect info? Shouldn't the airport be telling the council to change to statements on that page?

We don't know for sure what's correct or what's not. That's why I've sent it to LBA so that if it's wrong they can tell the council. I've never seen reference to 4.5m pax before. Even the NIMBY group quoted 5m.

If it's indeed wrong its hardly surprising coming from a council that recently fined a bus company for driving a double deck bus through a Leeds bus gate! They even sent a photo of said bus and it's registration details as evidence.

 

[Aviador]

It hasn't acquired it's clowncil nickname for no reason.

 

[Len Fish]

We don't know for sure what's correct or what's not. That's why I've sent it to LBA so that if it's wrong they can tell the council. I've never seen reference to 4.5m pax before. Even the NIMBY group quoted 5m.

If it's indeed wrong its hardly surprising coming from a council that recently fined a bus company for driving a double deck bus through a Leeds bus gate! They even sent a photo of said bus and it's registration details as evidence.

And here it is, off topic I know but couldn’t resist it. It was later cancelled because it was “issued in error”!

 

[Aviador]

Did someone say we are expecting an outcome of the airport night flying application shortly?