High Court Ruling on Luton & Stansted expansion
Thread Starter
High Court Ruling on Luton & Stansted expansion
I was expecting to log on here and read all about the High Court's ruling on Stansted and Luton's expansion plans, announced today.
From listening to Radio 4, it seems that 'more consultation' has been ordered into both the position of the second STN runway, and the extension of Luton's runway. As usual, more time was devoted to the STN issue.
What I would like to know is:
What are Luton management's reactions?
What are the implications for the timing of a runway extension?
Will the ruling either advance or hold back other developments, such as a full-length parallel taxiway?
From listening to Radio 4, it seems that 'more consultation' has been ordered into both the position of the second STN runway, and the extension of Luton's runway. As usual, more time was devoted to the STN issue.
What I would like to know is:
What are Luton management's reactions?
What are the implications for the timing of a runway extension?
Will the ruling either advance or hold back other developments, such as a full-length parallel taxiway?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool & Luton
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From London Luton Airport's website this evening (in the news pages)
"Judicial Review says no change to Transportation White Paper 18/02/2005
London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAO) welcomes the clarification given today in the judgement of the Court as to the position of the airport in the context of the Government’s White Paper on ‘The Future of Air Transport’ published in December 2003.
LLAO notes that the Government’s support for the growth of London Luton Airport up to the maximum use of a single full length runway has been upheld.
The Court had indicated that if the option of extending the runway were taken forward in order to achieve growth it would first need to be the subject of a full public consultation. LLAO has always been both open and transparent about its aspirations for expansion and the Court has acknowledged that LLAO had acted entirely properly in its response to the Government’s consultation which preceded the White Paper.
LLAO has always assumed that any option for achieving a single full length runway would require a full and public consultation as part of any normal planning process, the first stage of which would be undertaken during the preparation of the airport Master Plan this year."
Love to all...
Ginley's the name - Gumshoe's the game...
"Judicial Review says no change to Transportation White Paper 18/02/2005
London Luton Airport Operations Ltd (LLAO) welcomes the clarification given today in the judgement of the Court as to the position of the airport in the context of the Government’s White Paper on ‘The Future of Air Transport’ published in December 2003.
LLAO notes that the Government’s support for the growth of London Luton Airport up to the maximum use of a single full length runway has been upheld.
The Court had indicated that if the option of extending the runway were taken forward in order to achieve growth it would first need to be the subject of a full public consultation. LLAO has always been both open and transparent about its aspirations for expansion and the Court has acknowledged that LLAO had acted entirely properly in its response to the Government’s consultation which preceded the White Paper.
LLAO has always assumed that any option for achieving a single full length runway would require a full and public consultation as part of any normal planning process, the first stage of which would be undertaken during the preparation of the airport Master Plan this year."
Love to all...
Ginley's the name - Gumshoe's the game...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t think that the extension of the runway at LTN was ever proposed by the airport authority but just by the government. Don’t think it will ever be built either, not for the next 10 to 20 year anyway as it will be of no benefit to the low cost airlines whose passengers would have to fund it. Also to extend the runway at the 26 end would need an awful lot off earth to build up the land. Expansion will come from the south of the airport. Nice flat land for new aprons, terminal and an integrated station. Just wait for the end of year announcement.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.london-luton.co.uk/pdf/do...2-Diagrams.PDF
Old news, as is the 2030 vision.
I understand that the legal eagles are chewing away as I speak on issues relating to today's judgement.
One thing is for sure, it gives all the anti-airport complainers time to re-group and prepare for their own battles and the airports had better plan for this united front!
So just where does this leave Luton? Probably better off for knowing more fully the legal issues surrounding the HM Govt White Paper.
As I understand, please correct me if I am wrong? Luton has yet to submit to planning, any further major expansion. One can expect however, any such plan to become a public enquiry?
Vociferous debate has been happening relating directly to a small section of extra controlled airspace close to the west of Luton to facilitate a more normal left hand approach to Luton's easterly runway. The regulator has yet to make its decision following massive amounts of local consultation.
Goodness only knows how many hurdles face any airports growth in future?
Old news, as is the 2030 vision.
I understand that the legal eagles are chewing away as I speak on issues relating to today's judgement.
One thing is for sure, it gives all the anti-airport complainers time to re-group and prepare for their own battles and the airports had better plan for this united front!
So just where does this leave Luton? Probably better off for knowing more fully the legal issues surrounding the HM Govt White Paper.
As I understand, please correct me if I am wrong? Luton has yet to submit to planning, any further major expansion. One can expect however, any such plan to become a public enquiry?
Vociferous debate has been happening relating directly to a small section of extra controlled airspace close to the west of Luton to facilitate a more normal left hand approach to Luton's easterly runway. The regulator has yet to make its decision following massive amounts of local consultation.
Goodness only knows how many hurdles face any airports growth in future?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Buster has stated, LLAOL have yet to show their cards. The diagrams in his link came from the government funded SERAS study and do not necessarily reflect LLAOL thinking and might well end up being wide of the mark. But while everyone is looking at Stansted Luton might well succeed by the back door.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster,
"One thing is for sure, it gives all the anti-airport complainers time to re-group and prepare for their own battles and the airports had better plan for this united front!
Goodness only knows how many hurdles face any airports growth in future?"
And already face now! The industry as a whole has to wake up to this, and it strikes me as rather odd that the Freedom to Fly group was disbanded (think this was mentioned on a thread the other day).
More airlines also need to start taking leadership on the wider environmental concerns - BA, EZ and BE seem to be quite happy to consider emmissions trading and/or environmental labelling, but the likes of Ryanair are unsurprisingly against it (even if it would not affect them as much as many other carriers, as their '800s are very efficient machines).
There is going to have to be give and take over this - especially as this government likes to be seen to be "doing the right thing" (LOL), and trying to please everyone.
I have always felt that there is an anomaly between airlines saying on one hand "we're really struggling right now, don't tax us", and on the other "we need to be able to expand aggresively and build more runways".
Surely it is possible to phase in a reasonable level of taxation on either fuel (subject to international agreements) or emmissions (easier to do unilaterally?) in place of the grossly unfair APD. If airlines are seen to be covering more of their environmental externalities, then are they not in a much stronger position to argue for improved facilities?
Who is really there to represent the industry? ELFAA only serve no frills airlines, many of whom (EZ most notably) are not members. How much lobbying do IATA actually do? When do the AOA ever say anything worthwhile?
One thing we can be sure of, as Buster has so rightly pointed out is that nimbyism is a rampant and fast growing virus, which needs to be culled! Scare stories about planes falling out of the sky and spraying local kiddies with pollution, fueled by ill informed newspaper hacks, often make the perfect breeding ground for this disease to spread.
I can respect legitimate and life long environmental campaigners, but most of the anti airport rabble are just out to protect their narrow interests, and have lots of things to whinge about, but very few answers beyond "pass the airport" to the next local authority.
If this debate is not lead from within the industry, the airlines and airports will only have themselves to blame.
"One thing is for sure, it gives all the anti-airport complainers time to re-group and prepare for their own battles and the airports had better plan for this united front!
Goodness only knows how many hurdles face any airports growth in future?"
And already face now! The industry as a whole has to wake up to this, and it strikes me as rather odd that the Freedom to Fly group was disbanded (think this was mentioned on a thread the other day).
More airlines also need to start taking leadership on the wider environmental concerns - BA, EZ and BE seem to be quite happy to consider emmissions trading and/or environmental labelling, but the likes of Ryanair are unsurprisingly against it (even if it would not affect them as much as many other carriers, as their '800s are very efficient machines).
There is going to have to be give and take over this - especially as this government likes to be seen to be "doing the right thing" (LOL), and trying to please everyone.
I have always felt that there is an anomaly between airlines saying on one hand "we're really struggling right now, don't tax us", and on the other "we need to be able to expand aggresively and build more runways".
Surely it is possible to phase in a reasonable level of taxation on either fuel (subject to international agreements) or emmissions (easier to do unilaterally?) in place of the grossly unfair APD. If airlines are seen to be covering more of their environmental externalities, then are they not in a much stronger position to argue for improved facilities?
Who is really there to represent the industry? ELFAA only serve no frills airlines, many of whom (EZ most notably) are not members. How much lobbying do IATA actually do? When do the AOA ever say anything worthwhile?
One thing we can be sure of, as Buster has so rightly pointed out is that nimbyism is a rampant and fast growing virus, which needs to be culled! Scare stories about planes falling out of the sky and spraying local kiddies with pollution, fueled by ill informed newspaper hacks, often make the perfect breeding ground for this disease to spread.
I can respect legitimate and life long environmental campaigners, but most of the anti airport rabble are just out to protect their narrow interests, and have lots of things to whinge about, but very few answers beyond "pass the airport" to the next local authority.
If this debate is not lead from within the industry, the airlines and airports will only have themselves to blame.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Liverpool & Luton
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
---------------------------------------------------------
"most of the anti airport rabble are just out to protect their narrow interests, and have lots of things to whinge about, but very few answers beyond "pass the airport" to the next local authority."
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicely put jabird. One of the most prominent 'antis' at LTN publicly admits to using the airport all the time 'for business & pleasure' and in the next breath spouts off about public safety zones, pollution blah, blah, blah.
During my Friday pm transit last night I 'just happened' to be listening to him whining on the radio last night clearly stating that 'their' attention now was going to move to trying to get the orientation of the 'new' runway (?) moved - basically away from where he and his cohort live!*
And I know one local MP who told a public meeting that he thought all airport expansion should be centred at LHR 'cos they're so used to it down there - this was greeted by mixture of applause and laughter from the audience.
Almost without exception these people are total hypocrites.
* Perhaps an admission in itself of defeat for them... and a major point that is being missed here - despite the antis' claims of 'victory' in the High Court, the reality is if you look at the judgement, at LTN at least absolutely nothing has changed, 'cos the White Paper stands - and LTN have always made great play of having full public consultation / environmental impact reports etc., before any expansion build can take place.
Truth is the the LTN anti mob have achieved very little indeed - except spent a lot cash in the Courts!
Sorry for the rant gents / ladies - these people really get my goat.
Grumpy Eddie
"most of the anti airport rabble are just out to protect their narrow interests, and have lots of things to whinge about, but very few answers beyond "pass the airport" to the next local authority."
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicely put jabird. One of the most prominent 'antis' at LTN publicly admits to using the airport all the time 'for business & pleasure' and in the next breath spouts off about public safety zones, pollution blah, blah, blah.
During my Friday pm transit last night I 'just happened' to be listening to him whining on the radio last night clearly stating that 'their' attention now was going to move to trying to get the orientation of the 'new' runway (?) moved - basically away from where he and his cohort live!*
And I know one local MP who told a public meeting that he thought all airport expansion should be centred at LHR 'cos they're so used to it down there - this was greeted by mixture of applause and laughter from the audience.
Almost without exception these people are total hypocrites.
* Perhaps an admission in itself of defeat for them... and a major point that is being missed here - despite the antis' claims of 'victory' in the High Court, the reality is if you look at the judgement, at LTN at least absolutely nothing has changed, 'cos the White Paper stands - and LTN have always made great play of having full public consultation / environmental impact reports etc., before any expansion build can take place.
Truth is the the LTN anti mob have achieved very little indeed - except spent a lot cash in the Courts!
Sorry for the rant gents / ladies - these people really get my goat.
Grumpy Eddie
Thread Starter
Thanks for the responses so far guys.
When I looked on the LLA website yesterday there was no comment, so I thought I should ask.
Of course, no actual runway development is likely within 5 years (at best), and as LTNman points out, the locos are unlikely to want to contribute to a runway extension for the benefit of others.
Buster is right in his supposition that no planning application has so far been submitted. But I am aware that the operator is working on a development plan - if only to allow full use to be made of the existing runway.
Let's hope it emerges into the sunlight soon, and the process starts. What's the betting Luton BC approves it, Hertfordshire objects, the Government call it in for inquiry, the nimbys try to extend the inquiry, the report takes forever, the government delays its decision, the nimbys object again, the government farts about a bit, and by then we'll all be dead.
Still, we can always hope....
When I looked on the LLA website yesterday there was no comment, so I thought I should ask.
Of course, no actual runway development is likely within 5 years (at best), and as LTNman points out, the locos are unlikely to want to contribute to a runway extension for the benefit of others.
Buster is right in his supposition that no planning application has so far been submitted. But I am aware that the operator is working on a development plan - if only to allow full use to be made of the existing runway.
Let's hope it emerges into the sunlight soon, and the process starts. What's the betting Luton BC approves it, Hertfordshire objects, the Government call it in for inquiry, the nimbys try to extend the inquiry, the report takes forever, the government delays its decision, the nimbys object again, the government farts about a bit, and by then we'll all be dead.
Still, we can always hope....
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone ever calculated how much mitigation (sound insulation, double glazing, air filters etc) could be provided to genuine cases if all these pointless talking shops were abandoned, and if people who made the free decision to purchase houses near airports on the open markets were made to put up and shut up?
I don't know about the costs of the LHR 5 inquiry, but I've heard figures of £1m for DSA, and can't see how the CVT debacle can possibly weigh in at less than this, as it now stands at one high court case, two inquiries, and who knows what "leagal" tactics the protestors might resort to after this.
Add to this the White Paper, which itself cost £4.2m + VAT, with over 70% of responses being about the non runner airports in places such as Cliffe and Rugby. For a document which was supposed to "set the framework" for the next 30 years, we have more confusion now than ever before!
It also seems that there is a direct correlation between size of house and volume of complaints, and an inverse relationship with the number of years spent in the area.
How many airports seem to have densely packed urban developments at one end of the runway, with residents who are perfectly happy to co-exist with the planes and all the other stresses that come with modern city living, and dormitory commuter villages at the other end where people with too much time on their hands seem to complain about every possible move the airport makes (whether "good" or "bad").
This certainly seems to be the case at CVT, LPL and BHX, and no doubt occurs up and down the land!
Eddie, be glad that this guy actually puts his money into his local airport, rather than at STN or LHR etc!
I don't know about the costs of the LHR 5 inquiry, but I've heard figures of £1m for DSA, and can't see how the CVT debacle can possibly weigh in at less than this, as it now stands at one high court case, two inquiries, and who knows what "leagal" tactics the protestors might resort to after this.
Add to this the White Paper, which itself cost £4.2m + VAT, with over 70% of responses being about the non runner airports in places such as Cliffe and Rugby. For a document which was supposed to "set the framework" for the next 30 years, we have more confusion now than ever before!
It also seems that there is a direct correlation between size of house and volume of complaints, and an inverse relationship with the number of years spent in the area.
How many airports seem to have densely packed urban developments at one end of the runway, with residents who are perfectly happy to co-exist with the planes and all the other stresses that come with modern city living, and dormitory commuter villages at the other end where people with too much time on their hands seem to complain about every possible move the airport makes (whether "good" or "bad").
This certainly seems to be the case at CVT, LPL and BHX, and no doubt occurs up and down the land!
Eddie, be glad that this guy actually puts his money into his local airport, rather than at STN or LHR etc!
