PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - LUTON - 7
Thread: LUTON - 7
View Single Post
Old 2nd Oct 2012, 18:51
  #19 (permalink)  
LGS6753
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,626
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
Danny,

The main problem, as far as I can see, is Luton's physical location. Whilst that is it's great strength in terms of catchment area, two very local factors are inhibiting growth:

1. The airport is operated under a 30-year concession by London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAOL) but is owned by London Luton Airport Ltd (LLAL), which in turn is 100% owned by Luton Borough Council. The concession fee is partly a £3+ payment per passenger. The operator would probably be prepared to expand the airport to the south of the runway but if it did so, the focus of the operation would move out of LLAL's property, so they would be unable to collect their full concession fee. LLAL therefore have a powerful incentive to retain the airport within its current boundary, and as they control the concession, they are unlikely to award it to any company bent on depriving them of their income.

2. The southern and south-eastern perimeter of the airport is also the boundary between Luton Borough and Hertfordshire. If development land to the south of the airport was purchased for development, Hertfordshire would be the planning authority. They would be unlikely to grant planning permission to a facility that, in their view, causes nuisance (= noise) to their residents and that they have opposed for decades. The Hertfordshire County Transport Plan deliberately rejects improved road access in that part of the county, to strengthen their grounds for objection to any development.

The only way for this situation to be resolved to permit substantial expansion beyond the current airport perimeter would be either for the airport freehold to be sold by LBC to a private company which could fight Hertfordshire on national infrastructure grounds, or for government to determine that the airport is a national infrastructure asset and as such should be developed notwithstanding these local objections.

I personally can't see either of these scenarios occurring, so I suspect that development will be restricted to the current perimeter for at least the next twenty years.

Last edited by LGS6753; 2nd Oct 2012 at 18:52.
LGS6753 is online now