Correct, as I understand it this is all about re designation of 06:00 to 06:30 as daytime, thereby removing it from the nightime period when a quota exists. With a single runway exactly how many extra flights do they expect in this half hour, remembering that at least 2 flights already operate before 06:30? The objectors seem to think this planning is about the increase to 7m passengers pa, which clearly it isnt.
It isn't but enough objectors aided by the five Labour MPs, and the local papers, have used the word expansion so much people believe it. The airport have failed to clarify this point often and vociferously enough, a point made to them yesterday. But, Councillors, advised by their Planning Officer and the airport CEO, should know better.
They don't - or if they do, they appear perhaps to choose to pretend not to as it doesn't sit well with their anti airport agenda. Not all Councillors on the panel of course. The Tories seem supportive and none of the Tory MPs objected, even the one for Horsforth & Pudsey.
What will be interesting will be whether they object based on climate even after being advised that emissions are a Government matter and should not be used to refuse the application. That could surely be illegal and excellent grounds for appeal? The question is whether AMP Capital/LBA will go down that line and appeal. I hope they do and I have written and asked that they do too if the decision goes against them.
 
The scheduled November meeting of the Airport Consultative Committee has been cancelled in view of the current situation. The next meeting is in February, by which time things should be somewhat clearer as to the future of LBA, and aviation in general as possible vaccines start to be rolled out .
 
The scheduled November meeting of the Airport Consultative Committee has been cancelled in view of the current situation. The next meeting is in February, by which time things should be somewhat clearer as to the future of LBA, and aviation in general as possible vaccines start to be rolled out .

I saw your name in this thread and I was about to get myself a cup of tea and have a sit down read. So disappointing but here we are. Thank you for the update @White Heather.
 
Just a brief report on today's on line meeting of the Airport Consultative Committee. As you would expect, there was not a great deal to report other than the information provided below with regard to the terminal development, and the usual complaints from Menston that despite all the data showing aircraft overhead to be following the Preferential Noise Routes, they actually don't. The instruments apparently are all wrong and don't actually show aircraft where they really are. This is a complaint that has been going on for literally years, and nothing the airport do or say seems to convince the complainants otherwise.

The new CEO, Vincent Hodder, made his first appearance at the Committee and advised he is keen to continue to participate. Time will tell - we have heard that before, but he came across well. He sees his role at LBA as facilitator of a long term improvement in the airport, and a key part of that is Project Sky, which to you and me is the new terminal building.

With regard to the terminal, LBA Plans Panel have delegated responsibility to the Planning Department for negotiating with LBA the revisions to some of the Section 106 requirements outlined during the Plans Panel meeting on the 11th. LBA will be shortly engaging with the Planning Department but are first awaiting the signed off minutes from the meeting of the 11th, (due tomorrow) which should clarify some of the requirements. It was stated that there was some confusion as to what, exactly, was required, and it was clear that some of the panel misunderstood certain issues - eg. It was stated that the airport are planting 454 trees as part of the scheme and this was not enough. However, LBA are intending to plant 25,000 trees, not 454, so it may well be that the request to increase the tree planting may turn out to be unnecessary.

Somewhat typical of LCC however is that one of the requirements mentioned is that LBA must complete the construction of a cycle path to the terminal at the same time as the terminal is built. Some of you probably thought I was joking when I mentioned a cycle path!!

It was confirmed again that there is no right of appeal against the approval. The only action that can be taken is a Judicial Review which has to show that the decision was flawed technically and had not considered key factors. It was stated that the planning approval had been subjected to rigorous checks from a legal standpoint to ensure it did stand up to a legal challenge and it did cover all the key environmental issues likely to form the basis of such a challenge. It was also confirmed that the decision complied with all local and national aviation policies.

In response to a question as to when the revised operational hours come into force, it was confirmed that at present, this will happen when the airport has 'substantially commenced construction' of the terminal. However, some questions had been asked about this by Plans Panel members , who suggested potentially delaying it until the terminal was built so LBA are waiting to see what is in the minutes - and it was conceded that the situation may be something that needs to be discussed with the Planning Officer going forward.

Passenger numbers - for the year to date, April to January - are down 92% on last year. The best quarter in 2020 was the 2nd, which saw passenger numbers reach 19% of the 2019 figure. December showed a marked improvement, with some weeks carrying more passengers than last year but the Covid situation soon put a stop to that, with currently just 3 scheduled flights per week (Aer Lingus/Stobart to Belfast City). KLM re-commencing flights to AMS has been deferred again after the Dutch Government extended the ban on UK flights to 15th March 2021 at the earliest.

In response to a question - LBA expects Brexit to not impact on flights or growth at LBA. The long term future was described as bright. The one plus of Brexit for LBA is that more passengers are now able to buy goods duty free than previously so once the terminal is in use and the duty free shop is open again, it could well be selling more goods than before.

Air traffic movements this year have reduced substantially as expected and night time movements are down 85% on 2019-20 over the same period. Of these 77% operated on runway 32 and all were within the noise quota limits. Despite that, several of the committee members at the Menston end claimed it was 'impossible' to hold a conversation due to aircraft overflying the village. A request was made that the preferred runway was changed so that more flights departed over Leeds instead of Menston/Burley in Wharfedale and a denial that the runway use was in any way based on wind direction etc. Just as well I had put the mute on my laptop!!
 
thanks wh, yes reg the LCC meeting on the 11th feb, I viewed pretty much the full 8hrs of the meeting and agree because it went on so long towards the end it was a little rushed and there was some confusion as to what, exactly, was required (have these councilors ever done a days work, tired after 8hrs sat looking at a screen haha) regarding the lady from menston saying she cant hold a conversation due to aircraft noise, i have words for her that i dont wish to put on here!!
 
Thanks for
Just a brief report on today's on line meeting of the Airport Consultative Committee. As you would expect, there was not a great deal to report other than the information provided below with regard to the terminal development, and the usual complaints from Menston that despite all the data showing aircraft overhead to be following the Preferential Noise Routes, they actually don't. The instruments apparently are all wrong and don't actually show aircraft where they really are. This is a complaint that has been going on for literally years, and nothing the airport do or say seems to convince the complainants otherwise.

The new CEO, Vincent Hodder, made his first appearance at the Committee and advised he is keen to continue to participate. Time will tell - we have heard that before, but he came across well. He sees his role at LBA as facilitator of a long term improvement in the airport, and a key part of that is Project Sky, which to you and me is the new terminal building.

With regard to the terminal, LBA Plans Panel have delegated responsibility to the Planning Department for negotiating with LBA the revisions to some of the Section 106 requirements outlined during the Plans Panel meeting on the 11th. LBA will be shortly engaging with the Planning Department but are first awaiting the signed off minutes from the meeting of the 11th, (due tomorrow) which should clarify some of the requirements. It was stated that there was some confusion as to what, exactly, was required, and it was clear that some of the panel misunderstood certain issues - eg. It was stated that the airport are planting 454 trees as part of the scheme and this was not enough. However, LBA are intending to plant 25,000 trees, not 454, so it may well be that the request to increase the tree planting may turn out to be unnecessary.

Somewhat typical of LCC however is that one of the requirements mentioned is that LBA must complete the construction of a cycle path to the terminal at the same time as the terminal is built. Some of you probably thought I was joking when I mentioned a cycle path!!

It was confirmed again that there is no right of appeal against the approval. The only action that can be taken is a Judicial Review which has to show that the decision was flawed technically and had not considered key factors. It was stated that the planning approval had been subjected to rigorous checks from a legal standpoint to ensure it did stand up to a legal challenge and it did cover all the key environmental issues likely to form the basis of such a challenge. It was also confirmed that the decision complied with all local and national aviation policies.

In response to a question as to when the revised operational hours come into force, it was confirmed that at present, this will happen when the airport has 'substantially commenced construction' of the terminal. However, some questions had been asked about this by Plans Panel members , who suggested potentially delaying it until the terminal was built so LBA are waiting to see what is in the minutes - and it was conceded that the situation may be something that needs to be discussed with the Planning Officer going forward.

Passenger numbers - for the year to date, April to January - are down 92% on last year. The best quarter in 2020 was the 2nd, which saw passenger numbers reach 19% of the 2019 figure. December showed a marked improvement, with some weeks carrying more passengers than last year but the Covid situation soon put a stop to that, with currently just 3 scheduled flights per week (Aer Lingus/Stobart to Belfast City). KLM re-commencing flights to AMS has been deferred again after the Dutch Government extended the ban on UK flights to 15th March 2021 at the earliest.

In response to a question - LBA expects Brexit to not impact on flights or growth at LBA. The long term future was described as bright. The one plus of Brexit for LBA is that more passengers are now able to buy goods duty free than previously so once the terminal is in use and the duty free shop is open again, it could well be selling more goods than before.

Air traffic movements this year have reduced substantially as expected and night time movements are down 85% on 2019-20 over the same period. Of these 77% operated on runway 32 and all were within the noise quota limits. Despite that, several of the committee members at the Menston end claimed it was 'impossible' to hold a conversation due to aircraft overflying the village. A request was made that the preferred runway was changed so that more flights departed over Leeds instead of Menston/Burley in Wharfedale and a denial that the runway use was in any way based on wind direction etc. Just as well I had put the mute on my laptop!!
Another clear and comprehensive report WH. Thank you. Sadly the Mensto. Moan is likely to be with us for eternity. My understanding of the Council Planning Meeting was that extended flying hours should commence with the terminal becoming operational but we will have to see. I must say I am a little worried about the apparent “low profile” approach the new CEO is taking so far but maybe this is early days.
 
My understanding also. I also have same concerns about the new CEO. Its not just him who's low profile, the airports PR machine has been conspicuous by its absence for quite some time now.
 
My understanding also. I also have same concerns about the new CEO. Its not just him who's low profile, the airports PR machine has been conspicuous by its absence for quite some time now.
Well, today's meeting was attended by one of the Plans Panel and he raised no concern or objection to the airport's view as to when the change to daytime hours takes place.
 
I viewed pretty much the full 8hrs of the meeting and agree because it went on so long towards the end it was a little rushed and there was some confusion as to what, exactly, was required (have these councilors ever done a days work,
Digressing but it shows that LCC doesn't have the high ground entirely to itself when it comes to dopey councillors on planning committees.

A year ago North Somerset unitary authority rejected Bristol Airport's planning application decisively. The meeting was streamed live on the internet from the council's offices at Weston-super-Mare as it was pre-pandemic.

They set about their task with one councillor presenting a motion that the airport's application should be rejected. At the end of several hours discussion etc the chairman went around the table asking members to vote on the motion saying yes if they supported it or no if they didn't. One of the early members to vote had earlier spoken out against the expansion during the meeting but when it came to his turn to vote he said 'no'. His colleagues quickly shouted out 'you mean yes'. 'No I don't. I'm against the expansion'. It took some convincing to make him understand that the motion was also against the expansion so he should say 'yes'.

Quite whether all this was proper I don't know but it made little difference as the motion was carried 18 to 5 with a couple of abstentions. It did beg the question that if he didn't understand the motion what else didn't he understand?
 
If I remember correctly one of the councilors on the committee raised concerns that if the plans were passed the airport might start operating according to the new hours but not start construction. The councilor said the new hours should be linked to the finishing of the new building. The airport replied saying that they wanted the new hours to start at the same time as construction started and they could prove that once construction started it couldnt be stopped as they were able to provide copies of contracts with the various sub-contractors. The councilor said that wasnt good enough and when the councilors who voted in favour later did so, I understood that their 'conditions' included the requirement to hold back on new hours until the terminal was completed. I stand to be corrected though.
 
If I remember correctly one of the councilors on the committee raised concerns that if the plans were passed the airport might start operating according to the new hours but not start construction. The councilor said the new hours should be linked to the finishing of the new building. The airport replied saying that they wanted the new hours to start at the same time as construction started and they could prove that once construction started it couldnt be stopped as they were able to provide copies of contracts with the various sub-contractors. The councilor said that wasnt good enough and when the councilors who voted in favour later did so, I understood that their 'conditions' included the requirement to hold back on new hours until the terminal was completed. I stand to be corrected though.
You may be correct but until the minutes are delivered to the airport and the terms agreed following negotiations, the fall back position is apparently as stated. The airport did say that the position could change.
 
Noticed that the minutes from the planning meeting are now on the LCC website and show what was to be resolved.
They are to be signed off by the Plans Panel tomorrow, and then will be passed to LBA for scrutiny prior to discussions with the Planning Officer regarding the 'considerations' which are effectively amendments to the proposed Section 106 requirements.
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock