Luton-10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACL Start of Season S23 report out, nothing new than what we knew, MNG move 50% slots to daytime, El Al get more slots, nothing about EZY to BHD and could not find any summary of waiting Airlines for Slots - refused.
More 321s & 320s now so don't know how that is going to work vs S19 when it was a handful of pax below 18M.
More 321s & 320s now so don't know how that is going to work vs S19 when it was a handful of pax below 18M.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCO’s favour the applicant and are not balanced due to the tight timescales.
Anyone fancy reading 21,000 pages of submissions. Even the inspectors won’t have time to read them let alone opposition groups.
https://infrastructure.planninginspe...pcsection=docs
Anyone fancy reading 21,000 pages of submissions. Even the inspectors won’t have time to read them let alone opposition groups.
https://infrastructure.planninginspe...pcsection=docs
Last edited by LTNman; 28th Mar 2023 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the plans associatedwith the DCO, these 5 extra stands are stated as already having permission approved.
Note Yellow Pax airbridges to South Stands and the yet to be completed new stands plus a little main terminal infill.
Also out of view of this snapshot, a new runway exit towards the end of the 25 threshold which should reduce backtrack times for those which require a full length departure.
A bit of the Long Term Car Park P5 is lost, new Car Parking P6 & P7! but another linking taxiway between Delta & Foxtrot to aid flow from / to the North stands.
'Pond' no longer used at all for airliners.
Note Yellow Pax airbridges to South Stands and the yet to be completed new stands plus a little main terminal infill.
Also out of view of this snapshot, a new runway exit towards the end of the 25 threshold which should reduce backtrack times for those which require a full length departure.
A bit of the Long Term Car Park P5 is lost, new Car Parking P6 & P7! but another linking taxiway between Delta & Foxtrot to aid flow from / to the North stands.
'Pond' no longer used at all for airliners.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can count 10 extra stands that don’t exist today excluding the 4 under construction. Already approved actually means permitted development where the airport owner aka Luton Borough Council does what it likes without public scrutiny.
Car Parks P6 and P7 are both located on a major officially recognised large County Wildlife Site that will be destroyed. I guess no one cares here about that when their priority is to just count aircraft stands as though it was a sport.
Very interestingly, a serving barrister who was a Labour councillor has resigned the Labour whip. One of her allegations is that there was collusion between Labour councillors and portfolio holders regarding how they should vote, which is illegal, as the planning committee is meant to be independent of the council with councillors hearing the evidence and then voting based on what they heard at committee. I include part of her long letter below which demonstrates amply how corrupt the Council is when it comes to planning decisions.
Car Parks P6 and P7 are both located on a major officially recognised large County Wildlife Site that will be destroyed. I guess no one cares here about that when their priority is to just count aircraft stands as though it was a sport.
Very interestingly, a serving barrister who was a Labour councillor has resigned the Labour whip. One of her allegations is that there was collusion between Labour councillors and portfolio holders regarding how they should vote, which is illegal, as the planning committee is meant to be independent of the council with councillors hearing the evidence and then voting based on what they heard at committee. I include part of her long letter below which demonstrates amply how corrupt the Council is when it comes to planning decisions.
(i) Due to the incompetence and failure to follow rules and procedures which I observed on the planning committee. Unfortunately, independent thought is not encouraged in the Luton Labour Group. You are encouraged to stand up for your residents’ interests only if they align with the wishes of the councillors who control the Group. However, if your residents approach you and wish you to help them with something that is contrary to certain councillors’ views it is made clear to you that this is not the way things are done within the Labour Group. Firstly, there is a “quiet word in your ear” from a portfolio holder, then from the Whip, then a formal complaint to the Whip and then a formal complaint to Standards at the Council containing allegations completely lacking in merit, with 18 other staff (officers) and councillors copied into the email.
A very cavalier attitude was displayed by certain Labour councillors to following rules and procedures on the planning committee, and I often had to remind certain fellow Labour councillors of the need to adhere to the rules. The most egregious example included a discussion in an email chain with one senior member of the planning committee discussing with a portfolio holder how he was going to vote prior to a forthcoming full council meeting. This was blatantly ignoring the requirement for the members of the planning committee to base their decision on the representations made at the meeting and to not be pre-determined. This conversation followed the portfolio holder circulating documentation which was also contrary to the rules as this should be circulated through the officers.
We have a code of conduct that we should follow as councillors and that includes acting with integrity and not turning a blind eye when rules and procedures are being flouted. As a member of the planning committee, I believed that the residents deserved a fair hearing and both applicants and objectors deserved to be treated equally. For standing up and ensuring that this was the case I was reported to our Group Whip.
The complaint about me to Standards at the Council was made after I asked for a site visit at a planning meeting and this led to some Labour colleagues on the planning committee trying to ignore protocol and precedent and moving to a vote on a planning application when I wished to have a site visit to properly understand the application. We are meant to consider and scrutinise applications and not simply waive them through or rubber stamp them. It transpired that the application contained inaccurate information which was why I was having difficulty understanding the same. When I quite properly acted on behalf of my residents within the rules life on the planning committee was made increasingly difficult.
I made a formal complaint to the Whip copying in the Leader detailing the above and numerous other concerns including being shouted at on several occasions. I also complained that in planning meetings residents were shouted at and derogatory comments were made to certain residents if they opposed the officers’ recommendations.
You can probably guess where this is going, the Leader removed me from the planning committee in April 2021. As a consequence, I resigned the Labour Whip. This is before Luton was placed in special measures and when the residents still had a vote and when I was effectively giving up all chances of being a councillor in the next council election, as Independents tend not to be elected in Luton. I felt that it was pointless to remain in the Labour Group when you could not effectively represent your residents’ views.
The Whip and the Chair contacted me and asked if I really wanted to be an Independent. I replied that I was not making up the numbers in a Labour Group when the Leader was removing someone who was calling out the way protocols and rules were flouted and when I was actually doing the job for which I was elected, in effect I was a whistleblower. I was re-instated to the planning committee, and I decided to remain in the Labour Group as I felt I would have more of a positive effect changing things from within.
A very cavalier attitude was displayed by certain Labour councillors to following rules and procedures on the planning committee, and I often had to remind certain fellow Labour councillors of the need to adhere to the rules. The most egregious example included a discussion in an email chain with one senior member of the planning committee discussing with a portfolio holder how he was going to vote prior to a forthcoming full council meeting. This was blatantly ignoring the requirement for the members of the planning committee to base their decision on the representations made at the meeting and to not be pre-determined. This conversation followed the portfolio holder circulating documentation which was also contrary to the rules as this should be circulated through the officers.
We have a code of conduct that we should follow as councillors and that includes acting with integrity and not turning a blind eye when rules and procedures are being flouted. As a member of the planning committee, I believed that the residents deserved a fair hearing and both applicants and objectors deserved to be treated equally. For standing up and ensuring that this was the case I was reported to our Group Whip.
The complaint about me to Standards at the Council was made after I asked for a site visit at a planning meeting and this led to some Labour colleagues on the planning committee trying to ignore protocol and precedent and moving to a vote on a planning application when I wished to have a site visit to properly understand the application. We are meant to consider and scrutinise applications and not simply waive them through or rubber stamp them. It transpired that the application contained inaccurate information which was why I was having difficulty understanding the same. When I quite properly acted on behalf of my residents within the rules life on the planning committee was made increasingly difficult.
I made a formal complaint to the Whip copying in the Leader detailing the above and numerous other concerns including being shouted at on several occasions. I also complained that in planning meetings residents were shouted at and derogatory comments were made to certain residents if they opposed the officers’ recommendations.
You can probably guess where this is going, the Leader removed me from the planning committee in April 2021. As a consequence, I resigned the Labour Whip. This is before Luton was placed in special measures and when the residents still had a vote and when I was effectively giving up all chances of being a councillor in the next council election, as Independents tend not to be elected in Luton. I felt that it was pointless to remain in the Labour Group when you could not effectively represent your residents’ views.
The Whip and the Chair contacted me and asked if I really wanted to be an Independent. I replied that I was not making up the numbers in a Labour Group when the Leader was removing someone who was calling out the way protocols and rules were flouted and when I was actually doing the job for which I was elected, in effect I was a whistleblower. I was re-instated to the planning committee, and I decided to remain in the Labour Group as I felt I would have more of a positive effect changing things from within.
Last edited by LTNman; 29th Mar 2023 at 05:28.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I don't agree with the council acting like a Communist Committee (at least no forced housing relocation), there is a lot of new green space to enjoy will into Hertfordshire.
And if 32M gets approved
And if 32M gets approved
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s not new green space, as it is already green space. A farmers field in Hertfordshire that many locals will have to drive to is not a substitute for a mature public park and CWS that is actually in Luton.
We have to remember that the planning committee has been nobbled by its own council. The council wants a bigger airport but puts in a planning application first for a business park so it can approve its own application. Once that was approved they then apply for airport expansion, as the land already has planning permission when it goes to government.
We have to remember that the planning committee has been nobbled by its own council. The council wants a bigger airport but puts in a planning application first for a business park so it can approve its own application. Once that was approved they then apply for airport expansion, as the land already has planning permission when it goes to government.
Last edited by LTNman; 29th Mar 2023 at 12:25.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been looking through myself on the Examination Library folder on https://infrastructure.planninginspe...pcsection=docs
These plans are massive. Look at the road works, the proposed size of the terminal and the extension to DART. At today's prices is is daft to think the total cost won't give you much change from a £1 billion?
These plans are massive. Look at the road works, the proposed size of the terminal and the extension to DART. At today's prices is is daft to think the total cost won't give you much change from a £1 billion?
Last edited by cavokblues; 29th Mar 2023 at 18:55.
I'm struggling to see how what is essentially public sector could possibly raise £1bn on its own without the explicit backing of HM Treasury or the Bank of England. I don't believe commercial banks or bond investors would accept the risk against the possibility of a s114 notice - the words "ultra vires" would scare many people off. Whole business securitisation of the future LTN fees is one enormous egg in a basket. Is there a plan to sell LTN long term as opposed to just temporary leases ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost a couple of years ago was estimated to be between 2 and 3 billion. With inflation who knows what that figure is now. One of the big issues is that much of the land needs raising by up to 18m while at the same time the former unregulated council tip that the park sits on needs digging out also to a maximum depth of 18m.
The work will be in three phases spread over 20 years. The council has the idea that a concessionaire will fund the build, pay off £550m of LRT debts and pay a dividend per passenger before handing the airport back to the Council.
I also can’t find the document that shows the airport in each phase. Anyone got the name of the document or its number and which section it is in.
The work will be in three phases spread over 20 years. The council has the idea that a concessionaire will fund the build, pay off £550m of LRT debts and pay a dividend per passenger before handing the airport back to the Council.
I also can’t find the document that shows the airport in each phase. Anyone got the name of the document or its number and which section it is in.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More like at least 99 years. If anything goes wrong no doubt the concessionaire will claim force majeure like they did over Covid. The weak kneed Council just rolled over and instead of LLAOL suffering loses the Council paid the operator to run the airport. The Council also had to bail out LRT as they had no income due to LLAOL saying we ain’t giving you nothing and then the government had to bail out the Council.
There is a shortfall in the Council budget this year of £7.37m despite massive Council cut backs. Dig deep and the Council has admitted it is still allowing LLAOL to keep £15m of concession payments as part of force majeure agreement.
There is a shortfall in the Council budget this year of £7.37m despite massive Council cut backs. Dig deep and the Council has admitted it is still allowing LLAOL to keep £15m of concession payments as part of force majeure agreement.
Last edited by LTNman; 29th Mar 2023 at 20:08.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8BEnNfFoW1YsbO
A 99 year lease isn't going to work. There's too much risk around technology changes in the long-term - investors will want to see a lot more of a return on investment in the next 20 years.
Let's assume it takes until 2030 before a new terminal is fully built and somebody turns up to unveil a plaque. The 99 year lease would expire in 2129, or 106 years from now. If we go back 106 years from today, we're talking the middle of WW1. The whole green movement only began to be taken remotely seriously about 40 years ago, and is now significantly influencing Govt policy. Furthermore, terminals at major airports seem to have a lifespan of max 50 years - so functional changes would probably require Luton T2 to be demolished and a new building erected - so the concessionaire won't recoup any money from the latter half of their lease
Banks and many investors won't lend to coal-fired power plants in Europe any more... there's just too much long-term ESG reputational risk on this for commercial banks, pension funds and their ilk.
I'm sure Luton council will try all sorts of things on this... but I just can't see this working without private sector investors getting proper equity ownership of some of this... or HM Treasury giving their backing
Let's assume it takes until 2030 before a new terminal is fully built and somebody turns up to unveil a plaque. The 99 year lease would expire in 2129, or 106 years from now. If we go back 106 years from today, we're talking the middle of WW1. The whole green movement only began to be taken remotely seriously about 40 years ago, and is now significantly influencing Govt policy. Furthermore, terminals at major airports seem to have a lifespan of max 50 years - so functional changes would probably require Luton T2 to be demolished and a new building erected - so the concessionaire won't recoup any money from the latter half of their lease
Banks and many investors won't lend to coal-fired power plants in Europe any more... there's just too much long-term ESG reputational risk on this for commercial banks, pension funds and their ilk.
I'm sure Luton council will try all sorts of things on this... but I just can't see this working without private sector investors getting proper equity ownership of some of this... or HM Treasury giving their backing
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This talks about those 10 extra stands then T2 then Pier 2 in T2 - the video
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8BEnNfFoW1YsbO
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8BEnNfFoW1YsbO
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's assume it takes until 2030 before a new terminal is fully built and somebody turns up to unveil a plaque.
Phase 1. 2027 expand existing terminal.
Phase 2a, 2039 build part of Terminal 2 to increase airport capacity to 27m
Phase 2b. 2043 complete Terminal 2 to increase capacity to 32m.
So how many here will still be alive in 2043?