Twentyyears, you're right. FR24 does indeed show that 35 was being used for departures, and continued to be used for that after 320 aborted the landing.
By 'optimum', what I meant was that 05 was the preferred runway for landing as far as ATC were concerned, before the incident occurred. It clearly wasn't optimum once it had bits of Airbus messing it up.
The playback shows that all the immediately following flights did not land, suggesting to me that ATC were alert to potential debris as soon as the landing was aborted. TK1878 looked to be turning onto the approach for 05 about 8 mins after the abort, by which time they perhaps expected the runway to have been OK-ed. It's presumably probable that ATC issued instructions to the crew about making another approach on 05, on the assumption that an inspection would show the runway to be clear. When the reports came in that there were worrying amounts of Airbus on the runway, plans perhaps had to be changed to get the a/c on the ground asap.