Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[Snackbar]

Possibly but perhaps it doesnt matter as far as writing to councillors is concerned. After all, it was councillors that first made this public a full month before LBA intend to submit the application. It seems to be just the planning department that don't want to accept emails about this until its actually submitted. That is supposed to happen on 7 November, but the planning team say they will publicise it themselves, at which point they'll accept emails of support.

The one councillor who tends to be quite key is Cllr Colin Campbell (Otley and Yeadon). He sits on most of the planning panel meetings. He abstained from voting either in favour or against when the panel reviewed the last planning application in respect of the previous proposal to rebuild the airport terminal back in 2020.

 

[White Heather]

The one councillor who tends to be quite key is Cllr Colin Campbell (Otley and Yeadon). He sits on most of the planning panel meetings. He abstained from voting either in favour or against when the panel reviewed the last planning application in respect of the previous proposal to rebuild the airport terminal back in 2020.

My understanding was that he actually said no to the new terminal. I was listening to the plans panel debate and I'm pretty sure he said he couldn't back it and opposed it .
But your correct. He is key and he's one of those Councillors who made the airports plans public. He's also on the ACC .

But he is a Lib Dem and in recent years they are about as likely to support LBA as the Greens and G****A! So I wouldn't be confident that he will support it. Perhaps he and his mates need plenty of emails demonstrating support.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

My understanding was that he actually said no to the new terminal. I was listening to the plans panel debate and I'm pretty sure he said he couldn't back it and opposed it .
But your correct. He is key and he's one of those Councillors who made the airports plans public. He's also on the ACC .

But he is a Lib Dem and in recent years they are about as likely to support LBA as the Greens and G****A! So I wouldn't be confident that he will support it. Perhaps he and his mates need plenty of emails demonstrating support.

He did vote against. He told me it was because the airport wouldnt contribute enough towards infrastructure costs.

I think he suggested a capitation charge which the airport couldnt accept.

 

[White Heather]

He did vote against. He told me it was because the airport wouldnt contribute enough towards infrastructure costs.

I think he suggested a capitation charge which the airport couldnt accept.

Yes, I thought so and I recall him on about airport contributions to something that was nothing much to do with LBA. He couldn't have his way so refused to support it. Personally, I've never forgiven him!!

 

[Snackbar]

Yes, I thought so and I recall him on about airport contributions to something that was nothing much to do with LBA. He couldn't have his way so refused to support it. Personally, I've never forgiven him!!

I see our “friends” in the group that should be mentioned have started to mobilise calling on their supporters to write to their MP and Councillors, publishing totally unfounded claims of over 7,000 night flights p.a…….Its time to call this nonsense out, hopefully those who support the airport will respond in kind……

 

[SierraHotel]

I have posted a counter bulls*it post on Facebook containing factual information as against fictional.

 

[White Heather]

I see our “friends” in the group that should be mentioned have started to mobilise calling on their supporters to write to their MP and Councillors, publishing totally unfounded claims of over 7,000 night flights p.a…….Its time to call this nonsense out, hopefully those who support the airport will respond in kind……

Not sure it's anything to do with MPs. Its a local planning matter and not even a planning application which the government can call in. Besides, all 5 Leeds Labour MPs opposed Project Sky but it was still approved by Leeds City Council.

Any claims like that regarding the number of night flights is pure lies, and total speculation. It not really a surprise as they have persistently been economic with the truth. They rely on scaremongering and fabrication to generate support. I wonder if they will start yet another crowd funding to fight this?

The funny thing is, that if the airport is successful, the blame lies squarely with them for forcing the issue. They will have totally shot themselves in the foot. Hopefully they blow both feet off !

 

[Statto]

And don’t forget they will try to define any flight operating between 06;00 and 07;00 as ‘night time’ even though this counts as day-time at e.g Manchester. And LCC approved the previous application to redefine the night time period as ending at 06:00 as it was clearly consistent with planning policy.

Someone should ask them if they have already calculated how many flights will be operating in the future, then what happens if the hours aren’t changed. Have they done the economic analysis, the impact on displacement, estimated how many of these flights will end up operating from MAN or even DSA and in turn what the impact of that is ? Failure to consider this surely paints them firmly as ‘NIMBYs’

 

[White Heather]

And don’t forget they will try to define any flight operating between 06;00 and 07;00 as ‘night time’ even though this counts as day-time at e.g Manchester. And LCC approved the previous application to redefine the night time period as ending at 06:00 as it was clearly consistent with planning policy.

Someone should ask them if they have already calculated how many flights will be operating in the future, then what happens if the hours aren’t changed. Have they done the economic analysis, the impact on displacement, estimated how many of these flights will end up operating from MAN or even DSA and in turn what the impact of that is ? Failure to consider this surely paints them firmly as ‘NIMBYs’

NIMBYs is exactly what they are. I've always said it after talking to one of them who wanted LBA closed down and who said people should fly from MAN, like he does. They complain of noise, turn up at the Civic Hall in their PJs with their teddy bears. These are not really things that environmentalists would do. Their objections are generally based on their own home comforts and nothing to do with the planet.

 

[Finger66]

I have posted a counter bulls*it post on Facebook containing factual information as against fictional.

Unfortunately not on Facebook so can't offer any support there in putting facts right

 

[Aviador]

Not sure it's anything to do with MPs. Its a local planning matter and not even a planning application which the government can call in. Besides, all 5 Leeds Labour MPs opposed Project Sky but it was still approved by Leeds City Council.

Any claims like that regarding the number of night flights is pure lies, and total speculation. It not really a surprise as they have persistently been economic with the truth. They rely on scaremongering and fabrication to generate support. I wonder if they will start yet another crowd funding to fight this?

The funny thing is, that if the airport is successful, the blame lies squarely with them for forcing the issue. They will have totally shot themselves in the foot. Hopefully they blow both feet off !

I'd like to believe that the council can resolve this without any outside interference but the NIMBY group will go to any length to obstruct the process.

Could the airport not set something up in the terminal where people can add their e-signature, captive audience and all that? Marketing team member, stand, info display and an I-pad- job done

The likelihood is there will be a full public consultation where we will see a very noisy small NIMBY group getting lots of publicity. The general public generally don't care enough to write in and support the airport which is my concern. This will not be an easy task. We have already seen the senseless delays with the CLUED application and the airport must plan for this outcome and start a public support enrollment.

 

[Snackbar]

Not sure it's anything to do with MPs. Its a local planning matter and not even a planning application which the government can call in. Besides, all 5 Leeds Labour MPs opposed Project Sky but it was still approved by Leeds City Council.

Any claims like that regarding the number of night flights is pure lies, and total speculation. It not really a surprise as they have persistently been economic with the truth. They rely on scaremongering and fabrication to generate support. I wonder if they will start yet another crowd funding to fight this?

The funny thing is, that if the airport is successful, the blame lies squarely with them for forcing the issue. They will have totally shot themselves in the foot. Hopefully they blow both feet off !

Agree it’s not an issue directly for MPs as it’s a local planning issue, but their support can influence local councillors who tend to just follow the Labour lead! Don’t forget Reeves also said this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywv92pq5ko
Time now for any Pudsey constituents to put pen to paper and call her out on this!

 

[White Heather]

I'd like to believe that the council can resolve this without any outside interference but the NIMBY group will go to any length to obstruct the process.


The likelihood is there will be a full public consultation where we will see a very noisy small NIMBY group getting lots of publicity. The general public generally don't care enough to write in and support the airport which is my concern. This will not be an easy task. We have already seen the senseless delays with the CLUED application and the airport must plan for this outcome and start a public support enrollment.

With respect, it isn't much use telling us on here what the airport need to do. Only the airport can make it happen. The days of me being at the terminal every week for months on end collecting statements of support in an empty building, after all the passengers have gone, are over. The airport have it within their power to generate thousands of letters of support if they so wish. A simple statement that's pre printed has to be accepted by the council as long as it has the signatories name and address. But it depends on whether the council do seek public comment via their planning portal, or not. And I would imagine LCC would struggle to cope eith thousands of written statements of support. We crashed their system back in 1993 albeit a very poor system back then.

Just for once they should just deal with it, and give approval. No messing about. Seeking public comment when they dont legally need to, is just procrastination, and we can all forecast exactly what will happen..

Agree it’s not an issue directly for MPs as it’s a local planning issue, but their support can influence local councillors who tend to just follow the Labour lead! Don’t forget Reeves also said this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywv92pq5ko
Time now for any Pudsey constituents to put pen to paper and call her out on this!

Well you say they just follow the lead of MPs but Project Sky proved they don't always. Some of the Labour Councillors ignored the MPs and supported it. They together with the Tories got it through, no thanks to the Lib Dems or Greens.

Rachel Reeves publicly stated she would now support LBA should they seek expansion. Well come on then Rachel. Do it!! You can't support a dead duck airport down the A1 and again try to block LBA from competing equally.

 

[Statto]

I agree, And its worth saying then again that when the argument was tested in 2019, LCC still approved it.

Ultimately it should be about planning policy and I don’t think the planning policy has changed.

The other difference to 2019 is of course that GALBA tried to mobilise every eco-warrior they could to get behind the ‘no airport expansion anywhere’ argument. Developments at LGW, MAN, DSA, BRS, STN. LCY and of course support for the third runway at LHR have completely undermined that argument.

 

[JRP]

I have posted a counter bulls*it post on Facebook containing factual information as against fictional.

Is there a link to this?

 

[Statto]

In a shock move, I see Leeds City Council have launched their Economic Vision and Delivery Plan today and they actually talk about the airport positively - including the specific reference to the 7m passenger target and the fact that WE (i.e. the council) have ambitions to grow the number of direct flights from Leeds to new destinations

https://leedscouncil.my.canva.site/economic-vision/global-reach

 

[Snackbar]

With respect, it isn't much use telling us on here what the airport need to do. Only the airport can make it happen. The days of me being at the terminal every week for months on end collecting statements of support in an empty building, after all the passengers have gone, are over. The airport have it within their power to generate thousands of letters of support if they so wish. A simple statement that's pre printed has to be accepted by the council as long as it has the signatories name and address. But it depends on whether the council do seek public comment via their planning portal, or not. And I would imagine LCC would struggle to cope eith thousands of written statements of support. We crashed their system back in 1993 albeit a very poor system back then.

Just for once they should just deal with it, and give approval. No messing about. Seeking public comment when they dont legally need to, is just procrastination, and we can all forecast exactly what will happen..


Well you say they just follow the lead of MPs but Project Sky proved they don't always. Some of the Labour Councillors ignored the MPs and supported it. They together with the Tories got it through, no thanks to the Lib Dems or Greens.

Rachel Reeves publicly stated she would now support LBA should they seek expansion. Well come on then Rachel. Do it!! You can't support a dead duck airport down the A1 and again try to block LBA from competing equally.

I dropped a note to the airports and my MP yesterday evening re the proposed application. As expected she deferred to LCC, I suppose this is a step forward from her predecessor who we all know would have already taken a negative viewpoint and already sent in his letter of opposition to LCC!
In the long run however it is important local MPs are canvassed by LBA supporters. Should this end up been a formal planning application at some point there is a strong possibility that this may end up on the Secretary of States desk again!
Her full response is below -

Thank you for writing to Katie to make your views on this matter known. As this is a planning matter to be considered by Leeds City Council, Katie would not normally make any representations as an MP.
She is urging people to submit their views via the Leeds planning portal for full consideration.
Katie is aware of the role the Airport plays in supporting the local economy, and the contribution it makes to the wider region.

In a shock move, I see Leeds City Council have launched their Economic Vision and Delivery Plan today and they actually talk about the airport positively - including the specific reference to the 7m passenger target and the fact that WE (i.e. the council) have ambitions to grow the number of direct flights from Leeds to new destinations

https://leedscouncil.my.canva.site/economic-vision/global-reach

Thai also came out yesterday - whilst pitched around Heathrow it does have implications for all U.K. airports - in a positive way!

Plans for Heathrow expansion accelerate as Transport Secretary unveils next steps

Enabling Heathrow expansion will drive economic growth and create jobs across the country.

www.gov.uk

 

[LsS27]

People think that MP's have power over the local authority. and the MP's may give that impression, but in fact they have no more authority than any body else and can only lobby as we can. In fact we should have more power than the MPs as we 'elect them' all for our benefit.

 

[White Heather]

I dropped a note to the airports and my MP yesterday evening re the proposed application. As expected she deferred to LCC, I suppose this is a step forward from her predecessor who we all know would have already taken a negative viewpoint and already sent in his letter of opposition to LCC!
In the long run however it is important local MPs are canvassed by LBA supporters. Should this end up been a formal planning application at some point there is a strong possibility that this may end up on the Secretary of States desk again!
Her full response is below -

Thank you for writing to Katie to make your views on this matter known. As this is a planning matter to be considered by Leeds City Council, Katie would not normally make any representations as an MP.
She is urging people to submit their views via the Leeds planning portal for full consideration.
Katie is aware of the role the Airport plays in supporting the local economy, and the contribution it makes to the wider region.


Thai also came out yesterday - whilst pitched around Heathrow it does have implications for all U.K. airports - in a positive way!

Plans for Heathrow expansion accelerate as Transport Secretary unveils next steps

Enabling Heathrow expansion will drive economic growth and create jobs across the country.

www.gov.uk

The very fact Katie White has referred you back to the Council, is a positive. That's how it should be. If the council deal with it as they should, there's no need for it to ever become a planning application. LBA and Leeds Planning have been in discussions about the way forward since the CLEUD outcome, so it's quite likely that the council have confirmed that seeking a variation to the 1994 planning approval is permissible and a way to avoid a full planning application. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that at the ACC 4 months ago, the Otley Councillor, who sits on the Plans Panel, actually asked Vince Hodder if he had considered a variation.

LBA did, I believe, issue a notice of intention to appeal against the CLEUD outcome so that remains an option- something the council will be aware of. They'll also be aware that LBA have secured additional evidence to support any appeal. Hopefully the Plans Panel will be wanting to avoid going to the High Court and will focus on the positives of the proposal rather than what might be perceived as negatives and put an end to this constant merry go round, and just approve it.

In a shock move, I see Leeds City Council have launched their Economic Vision and Delivery Plan today and they actually talk about the airport positively - including the specific reference to the 7m passenger target and the fact that WE (i.e. the council) have ambitions to grow the number of direct flights from Leeds to new destinations

https://leedscouncil.my.canva.site/economic-vision/global-reach

That's good to see. Leeds City Council should be concerned though that for the vast majority of visitors to the city, they will fly in through MAN. Hardly a great advert for the city is it? Perhaps the government focus on the economy and developing airports has led to a change of tack with LBA now being openly supported? Previously, they have always approved airport developments, but not with much conviction. Its always seemed like hard work and connectivity by air has suffered for a generation due to their hesitancy to openly get behind LBA. Let's hope the penny has now dropped.

 

[HX3]

It may be an obvious question, and I’m probably forgetting some detail, but would this option not have been a better first option, rather than going down the CLEUD route?