Luton-9
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't keep up with these opposition groups. They criticise the council for giving themselves planning permission and suggest a conflict of interest, but now they say the current planning rules were 'democratically agreed'. Surely it can't be both?
If Luton Airport was owned and operated by MAG do you think the Council would allow them to build on one of Luton’s largest public parks. Don’t think so, which is why other Councils including Hertfordshire think Luton is run by dodgy characters.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's simply not true. The 32m application won't be decided by Luton Council it will be a planning inquiry! Even 19m is likely to go to Government before a decision just as the 18m plan did.
The point I'm making is that one argument surely cancels out the other doesn't it? If they were "democratically agreed" that suggests due process. If there is inproperity in the process, they can't be democratic!
The point I'm making is that one argument surely cancels out the other doesn't it? If they were "democratically agreed" that suggests due process. If there is inproperity in the process, they can't be democratic!
Anyone else you'd care to offend? I am no fan of LBC, but you don't think there's party political game playing going on here? Dodgy... come on. The MP for Hitchin and Harpenden being a Conservative v a Labour run council.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always frustrates me that Herts MPs fail to represent the views or speak up for the thousands of their constituents employed by the airport or those who rely on it for their income and seem to swallow the views of anti-airport groups as if it were fact!
I'm not saying they shouldn't be critical, nor am I saying that people aren't badly disturbed or shouldn't complain, but I think MPs and councillors have a duty to be more balanced instead of jumping on the band wagon and championing the cause of noise groups all of the time. From what I've seen Selous in Central Beds gets it about right.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be critical, nor am I saying that people aren't badly disturbed or shouldn't complain, but I think MPs and councillors have a duty to be more balanced instead of jumping on the band wagon and championing the cause of noise groups all of the time. From what I've seen Selous in Central Beds gets it about right.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be down to perception. I would say they are no quieter, I wish they were despite the claims but people live in the real world and don’t walk around holding dB meters. I live a mile away and they are still noisy if the wind is coming off the airport.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Herts District Council is now run by a Labour/ Lib Dem coalition so where does that fit into your indignation? Stevenage is run by Labour so you are talking more nonsense.
Last edited by LTNman; 19th Nov 2020 at 19:46.
if people are offended then that is tough. I don’t think party politics comes into it. The airport directors were up until a couple of years ago made up of all three parties so where does politics come into it? Why would Hertfordshire councillors support airport expansion when their constituents complain to them about aircraft noise regardless of which party they represent. The fact that their constituents use Luton as their first choice is lost on them but they are there to deal with complaints
North Herts District Council is now run by a Labour/ Lib Dem coalition so where does that fit into your indignation. Stevenage is run by Labour so you are talking more nonsense.
North Herts District Council is now run by a Labour/ Lib Dem coalition so where does that fit into your indignation. Stevenage is run by Labour so you are talking more nonsense.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It always frustrates me that Herts MPs fail to represent the views or speak up for the thousands of their constituents employed by the airport or those who rely on it for their income and seem to swallow the views of anti-airport groups as if it were fact!
Last edited by LTNman; 19th Nov 2020 at 20:14.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction - certain people make a lot of noise, if you pardon the pun, in regards to complaining about aircraft. I saw a study at LGW a few years ago that 1000s of complaints are made by just a handful of people. There is actually one person who sends email after email every day moaning about certain departures. A lot of their constituents rely on the airport for their livelihood. Of course I want to see checks and balances but to say they are “dodgy” is simply childish.
https://www.london-luton.co.uk/Londo...c5e683c5fe.pdf
Last edited by LTNman; 19th Nov 2020 at 19:51.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's simply not true. The 32m application won't be decided by Luton Council it will be a planning inquiry! Even 19m is likely to go to Government before a decision just as the 18m plan did.
The point I'm making is that one argument surely cancels out the other doesn't it? If they were "democratically agreed" that suggests due process. If there is inproperity in the process, they can't be democratic!
The point I'm making is that one argument surely cancels out the other doesn't it? If they were "democratically agreed" that suggests due process. If there is inproperity in the process, they can't be democratic!
Last edited by LTNman; 19th Nov 2020 at 21:00.
There seems to be a recent trend by some to claim those who criticize LBC & LLAL are motivated because of political reasons 
As far as I'm concerned this simplistic approach couldn't be further from the truth!.......I find it so frustrating to see what has been going on for the last few years having worked at the airport since the mid-1980's
I've said before, if you support the actions of LBC then put forward some reasoned arguments! Unfortunately, the recent facts speak for themselves (particularly when it comes to how LBC have been treating the local residents!)
As far as I'm concerned this simplistic approach couldn't be further from the truth!.......I find it so frustrating to see what has been going on for the last few years having worked at the airport since the mid-1980's
I've said before, if you support the actions of LBC then put forward some reasoned arguments! Unfortunately, the recent facts speak for themselves (particularly when it comes to how LBC have been treating the local residents!)
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a recent trend by some to claim those who criticize LBC & LLAL are motivated because of political reasons
As far as I'm concerned this simplistic approach couldn't be further from the truth!.......I find it so frustrating to see what has been going on for the last few years having worked at the airport since the mid-1980's
I've said before, if you support the actions of LBC then put forward some reasoned arguments! Unfortunately, the recent facts speak for themselves (particularly when it comes to how LBC have been treating the local residents!)
As far as I'm concerned this simplistic approach couldn't be further from the truth!.......I find it so frustrating to see what has been going on for the last few years having worked at the airport since the mid-1980's
I've said before, if you support the actions of LBC then put forward some reasoned arguments! Unfortunately, the recent facts speak for themselves (particularly when it comes to how LBC have been treating the local residents!)
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read my previous posts, as I keep saying the 32m application will be via a DCO and won’t be decided by the council. The 19m will be decided by the council but I guess it could be called in by the government, which is unlikely as it is only a million. This might explain why they didn’t put in an single application for 3.5 million due to a greater possibility that it would be called in.
Although if I understand planning law correctly, any individual can come forward for a planning application on any piece of land whether they own it or not?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I almost bought property in Wigmore 30 years ago but instead bòught off Tennyson Road because airport noise was much shorter duration, never bothered me too much, M1 was more of a nucenense if wind from West. Before that was in St Albans area, more bothered by 1-11s & 737-200s then and heavies out of LHR!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have called the Council dodgy when it comes to airport related matters so I will give an example of a dodgy practice. I can give many more if there is an appetite.
The key enabler for airport expansion is the £124m access road onto Wigmore Park. It was deliberately kept out of the DCO and was included in an application for a business park that just happens to occupy the same park that is required to expand the airport. The application was on behalf of the Council owned LLAL. At the time and while we here speculated about airport expansion it was being denied there were any such plans.
By the time the Council revealed its true intention to expand the airport the application for the business park, which still sits on the same piece of land needed for airport expansion, was before the planning committee at the Council. The problem was that public and interested parties had so many weeks to put in an objection but the Council wanted to approve it before the end of last financial year due to its pending DCO application. Rather than wait and conform to conventional planning law the planning committee approved the plans before the objection window closed.
One major late objection was put in by a local primary school but the planning committee never saw it as the pro airport council planning officer decided not to give it to the planning committee. I guess he concluded why bother as it would also be ignored like the other 450 objections.
So the plans were approved despite the breach of the Local Plan that banned road traffic access to the site from residential areas, as access was needed from the east for Terminal 2 that was never mentioned on the application.
So we are now left with approval for a phoney business park that magically turns into an airport if the Council gets its way. A business park that is not viable due to its £124m access road but is viable if there is a terminal at the end of it.
Some councillors have cottoned on to the fact that if the access road was included in the DCO for airport expansion then the Council would not pick up the bill. Now the Council can’t afford to build it. Shame!
The key enabler for airport expansion is the £124m access road onto Wigmore Park. It was deliberately kept out of the DCO and was included in an application for a business park that just happens to occupy the same park that is required to expand the airport. The application was on behalf of the Council owned LLAL. At the time and while we here speculated about airport expansion it was being denied there were any such plans.
By the time the Council revealed its true intention to expand the airport the application for the business park, which still sits on the same piece of land needed for airport expansion, was before the planning committee at the Council. The problem was that public and interested parties had so many weeks to put in an objection but the Council wanted to approve it before the end of last financial year due to its pending DCO application. Rather than wait and conform to conventional planning law the planning committee approved the plans before the objection window closed.
One major late objection was put in by a local primary school but the planning committee never saw it as the pro airport council planning officer decided not to give it to the planning committee. I guess he concluded why bother as it would also be ignored like the other 450 objections.
So the plans were approved despite the breach of the Local Plan that banned road traffic access to the site from residential areas, as access was needed from the east for Terminal 2 that was never mentioned on the application.
So we are now left with approval for a phoney business park that magically turns into an airport if the Council gets its way. A business park that is not viable due to its £124m access road but is viable if there is a terminal at the end of it.
Some councillors have cottoned on to the fact that if the access road was included in the DCO for airport expansion then the Council would not pick up the bill. Now the Council can’t afford to build it. Shame!
If you want to read about who and how many people are making the complaints read from page 46. I stand by my comment about dodgy because many are as they lie through their teeth, breach rules and then get caught out..
https://www.london-luton.co.uk/Londo...c5e683c5fe.pdf
https://www.london-luton.co.uk/Londo...c5e683c5fe.pdf
Bear in mind that probably 2m people live within 20 minutes of the airport itself.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just provide the information for others to interpret. 664 people made complaints in 2019 with complaints up I think 54% so we can all pick the figures we want to to make valid points but as you say many complaints come from the same people who are upset enough to put a complaint in time after time. Many if not most are pointless complaints. I actually made my one and only complaint last year as I know the two people running the noise department but seeing the nearest noise monitor was 6km away they could offer no information as to whether my complaint was even valid as they had no figures.
There is an all singing pollution monitor located on Wigmore Park inside its own fenced off compound that is owned by LLAL that is conveniently located out of the prevailing wind. Noise monitoring is carried out by LLAOL who can’t access the compound to place a permanent noise monitor there as they don’t have access to the site. Seems that this is the only thing both parties don’t share.
There is an all singing pollution monitor located on Wigmore Park inside its own fenced off compound that is owned by LLAL that is conveniently located out of the prevailing wind. Noise monitoring is carried out by LLAOL who can’t access the compound to place a permanent noise monitor there as they don’t have access to the site. Seems that this is the only thing both parties don’t share.
Last edited by LTNman; 20th Nov 2020 at 08:28.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTNman You may well be right and there's probably an element of truth there, but again I would argue this can not be presented as 'fact' and ultimately its your opinion which you share with other like minded people. Very difficult to prove one way of the other I guess. Almost always local authorities are more cock-up than conspiracy.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is indeed hard to prove. Even when there is compelling evidence it is ignored and denied. I can’t and won’t go into detail.
I think enough has been said and it is time to move on and maybe discuss potential Christmas passenger figures and how fast Luton will recover in 2021.
I think enough has been said and it is time to move on and maybe discuss potential Christmas passenger figures and how fast Luton will recover in 2021.
Last edited by LTNman; 20th Nov 2020 at 14:29. Reason: Post reduction