Luton-9
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of history
A long, long time ago, late 1960's, the local council commissioned a report into future airport expansion. Known as the Snow Report (LADACAN referred to it as more like a blizzard) the recommendation was for, amongst other things, a new north-south runway, along the line of what then was the 18/36 grass runway. This was before there was a Wigmore Park or the Wigmore housing estate. Nothing came of it, of course.
Meanwhile the government had commissioned another report into a site for the 3rd London airport. This was the Roskill Commission, who short-listed 4 sites at Wing (Bucks), Thurleigh (Bedford), Nuthampstead (SE of Royston) and Maplin Sands (Thames estuary). Neither Stansted nor Luton came into consideration. The commission reached their decision in January 1971 and their choice was for Wing, which would have meant the closure of Luton as it would have been too close to the flight paths for the new airport. Having spent a considerable amount of (taxpayers) money on this report, the government chose to ignore it and selected Maplin Sands instead. Luton was still earmarked for closure once this new airport was built. (I'm sure this had nothing to do with the then PM instructing aircraft from Luton routing via Beacon Hill - close to Chequers - be rerouted when he was in residence...)
Following the downturn in aviation after the oil crisis in 1973/74 the government abandoned plans to build at Maplin Sands and eventually plumped for Stansted, which made a lot more sense given much of the infrastructure was already in place. The axe that had hung over Luton was finally lifted in 1978. After many years of reports/public inquiries/objections etc. work finally began developing Stansted in 1986, with the new terminal open for business in 1991.
Since then, Luton Council has hatched various plans for airport development. I can remember seeing the model in the old airport admin building (the old Court Line ops), probably the mid-90's, of a proposed development which had a satellite terminal to the east or south east of the current CTA, possibly more in the direction of the engine run bay. Nothing came of that one. In 2002 the DFT published a report into the future of air transport in the south east, which proposed for Luton - amongst other options elsewhere - either a new runway aligned NE-SW (pointing close to Harpenden and straight at Hitchin) or a 2nd parallel runway and new terminal to the south. Still waiting on that one as well.
My personal opinion is that, if the airport is to expand then south is the only sensible option, just another terminal, forget the 2nd runway. New access roads would be needed and a separate DART link as per the Option 2 in the report. Yes it means going into Hertfordshire (I've corrected this - see further post) but surely if the government are to make the final decision then objections from a neighbouring county can be dealt with. Building to the north/east of the existing site is a bonkers idea IMHO. Go where there's space, don't try and cram even more people into an area, infrastructure and road system that is already bursting at the seams. 38 million passengers per year? Ouch!
A long, long time ago, late 1960's, the local council commissioned a report into future airport expansion. Known as the Snow Report (LADACAN referred to it as more like a blizzard) the recommendation was for, amongst other things, a new north-south runway, along the line of what then was the 18/36 grass runway. This was before there was a Wigmore Park or the Wigmore housing estate. Nothing came of it, of course.
Meanwhile the government had commissioned another report into a site for the 3rd London airport. This was the Roskill Commission, who short-listed 4 sites at Wing (Bucks), Thurleigh (Bedford), Nuthampstead (SE of Royston) and Maplin Sands (Thames estuary). Neither Stansted nor Luton came into consideration. The commission reached their decision in January 1971 and their choice was for Wing, which would have meant the closure of Luton as it would have been too close to the flight paths for the new airport. Having spent a considerable amount of (taxpayers) money on this report, the government chose to ignore it and selected Maplin Sands instead. Luton was still earmarked for closure once this new airport was built. (I'm sure this had nothing to do with the then PM instructing aircraft from Luton routing via Beacon Hill - close to Chequers - be rerouted when he was in residence...)
Following the downturn in aviation after the oil crisis in 1973/74 the government abandoned plans to build at Maplin Sands and eventually plumped for Stansted, which made a lot more sense given much of the infrastructure was already in place. The axe that had hung over Luton was finally lifted in 1978. After many years of reports/public inquiries/objections etc. work finally began developing Stansted in 1986, with the new terminal open for business in 1991.
Since then, Luton Council has hatched various plans for airport development. I can remember seeing the model in the old airport admin building (the old Court Line ops), probably the mid-90's, of a proposed development which had a satellite terminal to the east or south east of the current CTA, possibly more in the direction of the engine run bay. Nothing came of that one. In 2002 the DFT published a report into the future of air transport in the south east, which proposed for Luton - amongst other options elsewhere - either a new runway aligned NE-SW (pointing close to Harpenden and straight at Hitchin) or a 2nd parallel runway and new terminal to the south. Still waiting on that one as well.
My personal opinion is that, if the airport is to expand then south is the only sensible option, just another terminal, forget the 2nd runway. New access roads would be needed and a separate DART link as per the Option 2 in the report. Yes it means going into Hertfordshire (I've corrected this - see further post) but surely if the government are to make the final decision then objections from a neighbouring county can be dealt with. Building to the north/east of the existing site is a bonkers idea IMHO. Go where there's space, don't try and cram even more people into an area, infrastructure and road system that is already bursting at the seams. 38 million passengers per year? Ouch!
Last edited by cj241101; 10th Jul 2018 at 15:27.
Paxing All Over The World
Great summary cj241101.
Expansion at LTN has to wait until final confirmation that LHR r3 will not be built. Spolier alert it won't be built. But it's another few years before they admit that ...
Expansion at LTN has to wait until final confirmation that LHR r3 will not be built. Spolier alert it won't be built. But it's another few years before they admit that ...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My personal opinion is that, if the airport is to expand then south is the only sensible option, just another terminal, forget the 2nd runway. New access roads would be needed and a separate DART link as per the Option 2 in the report. Yes it means going into Hertfordshire but surely if the government are to make the final decision then objections from a neighbouring county can be dealt with. Building to the north/east of the existing site is a bonkers idea IMHO. Go where there's space, don't try and cram even more people into an area, infrastructure and road system that is already bursting at the seams. 38 million passengers per year? Ouch!
The maps I can see on the net show the land as being Mid Bedfordshire going as far south as East Hyde.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least when Boris becomes PM he won't have to lie in front of a bulldozer to give LHR R3 the elbow....
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ___ . ___ . ___ . lines are county boundaries but must also be local borough boundaries or similar. Heres a Google Earth view:-
and here's one with the Herts district boundaries:-
The Herts problem, as you say, doesn't arise to the south only immediately east of the runway end. An area the size of the current CTA could be accommodated on what is currently farmland. OK, so if I lived either on the farm or in one of the cottages at the start of the lane leading to the south side crash gate I wouldn't be too happy. Aside from those there would be no other properties I can see being directly affected (bit better than the 800-odd properties earmarked for demolition by LHR R3).. Unlike Wigmore Park the land is flat. Get the planning application in NOW!!
Last edited by cj241101; 10th Jul 2018 at 14:53.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cj
Thanks for the confirmation.
I am with you in regard to the south being the better Option.
The airport seem to have initially ruled this out, probably due to the fact that they have already obtained the land to the North and have already started to move soil in that direction.They see this as the easier option(not necessary the best)
They would have the problem of getting permission to build on Green Belt land and overcoming the objections for Someries in the South ,but surely it's better than the chaos that will surely ensue with 20 Million more pax trying to use a road network , that at present can't even cope at peak time for 16 Million pax.
They have said they would return to the South Option at a later date if the North was ruled out.
Cant see it happening but you never know.
Thanks for the confirmation.
I am with you in regard to the south being the better Option.
The airport seem to have initially ruled this out, probably due to the fact that they have already obtained the land to the North and have already started to move soil in that direction.They see this as the easier option(not necessary the best)
They would have the problem of getting permission to build on Green Belt land and overcoming the objections for Someries in the South ,but surely it's better than the chaos that will surely ensue with 20 Million more pax trying to use a road network , that at present can't even cope at peak time for 16 Million pax.
They have said they would return to the South Option at a later date if the North was ruled out.
Cant see it happening but you never know.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green belt land seems to have increasingly less meaning these days. Much as I disapprove of green belt land disappearing under housing estates (or airports), if the airport is to be expanded it would have to be a far better idea than the council's current preferred option. The area I have looked at would be adjacent to, but not on top of, Someries Castle, which I would have thought in its current state was a less valuable public amenity than a country park in any case. Yes I realise there are complicated issues (cost, planning permission, politics amongst them) if and wherever the airport gets extended but what seems blindingly obvious if you want to more than double the airport's capacity then DON'T try and do it where space is at a premium.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The complicated issue is that options 1a to 1d, which are the park options involves building on an unstable unregulated council tip. As LLAL was handed free land maybe that would persuade them to overlook the obvious dangers. The existing project to upgrade Luton to 18 million passengers is already over a year late and is 70% over budget. Not a good sign for the future.
South is best but not in LLAL's eyes as there would need to be over spill into the Hertfordshire badlands even if it was just for airport parking.
South is best but not in LLAL's eyes as there would need to be over spill into the Hertfordshire badlands even if it was just for airport parking.
Looking at land to the south-west of the 'bubble of land', it appears to be in Bedfordshire. Geoge wood certainly is. Anything eastwards does tread upon Hertfordshires sacred land.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Luton
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Snow Report had a terminal on the south side of the runway and currently now, an ideal location for it, unless a second, (possibly) shorter runway is proposed south of 08-26, like Manchester?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South Beds indeed. The Luton boundary is as depicted in an earlier post so new roads would be outside Luton's boundary.
1,562,308 million passengers in June, marking a 4% increase compared to the same time last year.
1,562,308 million passengers in June, marking a 4% increase compared to the same time last year.
