Luton-9
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Luton
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The superstructure is being covered in scaffolding again after being covered when it was by the Ibis. I assume for the painting of the 5 shades of grey to a single grey.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been some debate here whether the consent sort by LLAOL to add new stands were more than the 48 originally approved in the 2015 planning application.
I have provided the evidence submitted by LLAOL that they consider they are still within the existing limit with the existing stand layout of 43 stands and the proposed layout of 47 stands. Seems that cargo stands don't count.
As can be seen stands 16-19 will revert back to Signature and will be called just stand 16.
In the original application Signature stand 80 was meant to be 3 terminal stands and stand 80 was meant to be 1 terminal stand . Also on the hangar line there was one extra stand making 48 in total plus cargo.
Now
Proposed
I have provided the evidence submitted by LLAOL that they consider they are still within the existing limit with the existing stand layout of 43 stands and the proposed layout of 47 stands. Seems that cargo stands don't count.
As can be seen stands 16-19 will revert back to Signature and will be called just stand 16.
In the original application Signature stand 80 was meant to be 3 terminal stands and stand 80 was meant to be 1 terminal stand . Also on the hangar line there was one extra stand making 48 in total plus cargo.
Now
Proposed
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have stands 80/81 and Cargo ever been used for sheduled Aircraft? I did imply on a previous post about stand 16 going back to Signature full time.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocean Sky put in the planning application for stands 80 and 81 in 2013. They then appeared on the airports expansion plans for terminal stands. I have never seen either stand used for terminal passengers although I have seen an easyjet parked on there once. Cargo stands have been used for diverted passenger aircraft but then so has taxiway extension to Taxiway Bravo
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOT wanting to start a LTN v STN war ..... just a heads up that El AL are reintroducing TLV-STN-TLV services from June, they appear to be complimentary to the Luton services not "instead of" and are bookable on the EL AL website.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EL AL are dipping their toes back into Stansted because they cannot get extra flights into Luton due to seat capping at Luton. Also there could be an argument that there is less competition.
I'm wondering if the likes of Vueling or SunExpress might be persuaded to move to Stansted in exchange for some cash from El Al...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cap is only expected to last this year with a planning application from the council’s business partner being heard soon. There is no doubt about the outcome as it is council policy to ignore objections as it puts its own interests first, which makes a mockery of Luton’s corrupt planning process.
Last edited by LTNman; 11th Feb 2020 at 18:48.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn’t that long ago that the airport operator stated that the airports capacity was 16 million but the bully boys at the council wanted more with the airport operator eventually conceding. Now according to reports here the operator has put in an application for 19 million which makes me wonder if it is actually the council putting in the application to itself via the company that is running the concession. This I would imagine is linked to the other planning application to relax noise limits as the operator doesn’t wish to comply.
This is a classic tale of abuse of power by a local authority where there are no checks and balances and where the planning committee goes through the motions to make everything appear legal but the process is not impartial.
This is a classic tale of abuse of power by a local authority where there are no checks and balances and where the planning committee goes through the motions to make everything appear legal but the process is not impartial.
Last edited by Spanish eyes; 13th Feb 2020 at 04:35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn’t that long ago that the airport operator stated that the airports capacity was 16 million but the bully boys at the council wanted more with the airport operator eventually conceding. Now according to reports here the operator has put in an application for 19 million which makes me wonder if it is actually the council putting in the application to itself via the company that is running the concession. This I would imagine is linked to the other planning application to relax noise limits as the operator doesn’t wish to comply.
This is a classic tale of abuse of power by a local authority where there are no checks and balances and where the planning committee goes through the motions to make everything appear legal but the process is not impartial.
This is a classic tale of abuse of power by a local authority where there are no checks and balances and where the planning committee goes through the motions to make everything appear legal but the process is not impartial.
For decades the airport was under used and now it has the potential to become the UK’s 3rd Airport (yes 3rd Airport) and I live within twenty five seconds of departing aircraft from the runway over south Luton.
You claim or have inferred that the council is breaking the Law. Can you please state exactly what Laws have been broken.
I await your response...
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I haven't said the council was breaking the law, I said it was an abuse of power.
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/defau...uncill-d92.pdf
"Members of a planning committee, Local Plan steering group (or full Council when the local plan is being considered) need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application or on planning policies"
The airport is a limited company and so should be treated like any other limited company.
Now tell me they all go into that meeting with an open mind when it is council policy to expand the airport at any cost. Even airport supporters, and I am one of them, can see something is not right here. So who is really pushing this application? Couple of clues here from the past with the then airport operator saying the capacity was 16 million.
Or here when the council wanted more and had a big falling out.
AirportWatch | Second consultation at Luton Airport ? this time it?s the Master Plan
https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/defau...uncill-d92.pdf
"Members of a planning committee, Local Plan steering group (or full Council when the local plan is being considered) need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application or on planning policies"
The airport is a limited company and so should be treated like any other limited company.
Now tell me they all go into that meeting with an open mind when it is council policy to expand the airport at any cost. Even airport supporters, and I am one of them, can see something is not right here. So who is really pushing this application? Couple of clues here from the past with the then airport operator saying the capacity was 16 million.
Or here when the council wanted more and had a big falling out.
AirportWatch | Second consultation at Luton Airport ? this time it?s the Master Plan
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? Many of our most successful and growing businesses are completely illegal. Going back a few decades we had very successful and growing tobacco businesses. Times change.