It might be the case that in the long run the airport will have to be sold off to clear its debts but it should never have been allowed to get into that position.
The concession agreement meant that the airport operator took the financial risks in return for additional years added to the concession agreement. Sounds good in principle but the result was a terminal extension built on the cheap while the Council funded Dart was a Rolls Royce job.
The reason the terminal was built on the cheap and left unfinished was because the concessionaire would be expected to walk away when the concession ends as they only rented the building. The noteworthy thing about the Dart is that they refused to fund it. Seeing the auditors have stated that £187m of the build cost is unrecoverable maybe it was a sound decision even with more years added to the concession.
So why was the Dart actually built and why did the airport operator refuse to fund it apart from the finances not adding up? The truth is that for an 18m passenger capped airport the £313m spent won’t add a single passenger to the airport. It was built in anticipation of Terminal 2 being approved. Even if T2 is approved it was not for the Council to build it but the concessionaire tasked with building a second Terminal.
The role of the directors of LRT is to exercise independent judgement and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. So did they ask the question what happens if T2 is rejected by the planning inspectors? If they did how did they justify the cost of the Dart? I suspect it didn’t happen but when one of the directors includes someone who works in the Chemists at Asda and a travel agent, is it really surprising.
Last edited by LTNman; 13th Jun 2023 at 05:28.