Heathrow-2
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow should just go ahead and force the Government’s hand by submitting a full application for the third runway and associated works to the Planning Inspectorate. That should be dealt with fairly and independently with a recommendation being submitted to the Secretary of State. Remaining issues of land etc needn’t be sorted because you can submit an application on land you do not own.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Thread Starter
Heathrow should just go ahead and force the Government’s hand by submitting a full application for the third runway and associated works to the Planning Inspectorate. That should be dealt with fairly and independently with a recommendation being submitted to the Secretary of State. Remaining issues of land etc needn’t be sorted because you can submit an application on land you do not own.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Bless.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry to say Airport Planner I think you are in cloud cuckoo land regarding a third runway at Heathrow or a new airport to be built in the south east of England. They have been trying since 1968 and still have got nowhere.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should clarify the difference between the schemes is pretty close, and it is only in 2050 that LGW mores ahead of LHR.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when its a package deal involving billions of public funding on associated road and rail schemes outside the perimeter fence, impacts on the M25 etc, it's a bit more complicated isn't it? Sure, I've seen public inquiries into runway extensions at regional airports where the Government has pretty much sat on the sidelines and said 'que sera'. But Heathrow---no chance. The next step will be the vote on the NPS. If that squeaks through, then the caravan moves on.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow should just go ahead and force the Government’s hand by submitting a full application for the third runway and associated works to the Planning Inspectorate. That should be dealt with fairly and independently with a recommendation being submitted to the Secretary of State. Remaining issues of land etc needn’t be sorted because you can submit an application on land you do not own.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Now, the SoS can go against the recommendation and there is no right to appeal. But if a refusal is unreasonable, ie because May, Johnson and a few other Tories *might* lose their seat, costs can be reclaimed. An awarding of costs along with the Inspectorate’s recommendation to approve would make an ongoing blockage of expansion untenable.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good way to lose the support of this Government for sure, assuming they will still be in power after the next election.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
2 - forcing the current government's hand now would likely lead to the unsuccessful conclusion before the next election.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Southampton
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PINS (Planning Inspectorate) have been preparing for the third runway application for some time - clearing appeal caseloads, organising warehouses to store the 10,000+ documents that are going to be submitted, it’ll be the biggest app they’ll ever face. So I doubt they’ll be best impressed with any delays given the proposal should be submitted in due course.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's true, albeit:
1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
2 - forcing the current government's hand now would likely lead to the unsuccessful conclusion before the next election.
1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
2 - forcing the current government's hand now would likely lead to the unsuccessful conclusion before the next election.
The arithmetic is going to be interesting. Presumably it will turn on the numbers of Labour and SNP voting in favour of the NPS versus the number of Tories voting against. With the Select Committee having given rather conditional approval, it will be interesting to see how HAL play their response, especially to the proposition that aero charges should remain unchanged or increase only marginally. What package will they offer to persuade the waverers?
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Leeds
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arithmetic is going to be interesting. Presumably it will turn on the numbers of Labour and SNP voting in favour of the NPS versus the number of Tories voting against. With the Select Committee having given rather conditional approval, it will be interesting to see how HAL play their response, especially to the proposition that aero charges should remain unchanged or increase only marginally. What package will they offer to persuade the waverers?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to know how they're calculating that LGW offers a better financial return. Is it just a case of meddling with them to make it sound that way?
Laker, Dan Air, Air Europe, 1991 LHR opening lost them a load of long haul, VS original core long haul, BA's hub, XLA, MON and if I was a betting man, DY collapse at the next economic slowdown, and the majority of LGW's long haul growth is coming from them.
Of course a vote in parliament only gets over the political hurdle (assuming they don't create another legal problem in the process). The legal, financial and deliverability impediments remain.
1 - John McDonnell is hardly a fan of LHR expansion, so there is reason to believe any Labour government would not support the scheme: and
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, totally. But the political hurdle is probably the Bechers Brook of the circuit.
If the horse falls, I'm not convinced the system will necessarily move on to LGW. There's another eye wateringly expensive scheme for what it offers.
Back to Basics
I have just arrived on BA12 5.20am from Singapore this morning. Getting from C stand to T5 via a long walk and then a train, then escalators, the folk surrounding me up to 1500 from 3 flights, like a central London station in rush hour and using the tube.
Do I assume that all 380's use these stands and the smaller aircraft use the T5 stands? The corridors were cold and damp with wet floors on the airbridges from the upper deck. 2 immigration staff directing UK pax to use the electronic gates. No baggage trolleys at baggage reclaim.
When is the CEO or top staff of HAL going to visit this chaos when the airport starts each morning
T 5 needs to get its act together, HAL do not deserve a another runway.
Changi was busy but clean and comfortable.
Do I assume that all 380's use these stands and the smaller aircraft use the T5 stands? The corridors were cold and damp with wet floors on the airbridges from the upper deck. 2 immigration staff directing UK pax to use the electronic gates. No baggage trolleys at baggage reclaim.
When is the CEO or top staff of HAL going to visit this chaos when the airport starts each morning
T 5 needs to get its act together, HAL do not deserve a another runway.
Changi was busy but clean and comfortable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just arrived on BA12 5.20am from Singapore this morning. Getting from C stand to T5 via a long walk and then a train, then escalators, the folk surrounding me up to 1500 from 3 flights, like a central London station in rush hour and using the tube.
Do I assume that all 380's use these stands and the smaller aircraft use the T5 stands? The corridors were cold and damp with wet floors on the airbridges from the upper deck. 2 immigration staff directing UK pax to use the electronic gates. No baggage trolleys at baggage reclaim.
When is the CEO or top staff of HAL going to visit this chaos when the airport starts each morning
T5 needs to get its act together, HAL do not deserve a another runway.
Changi was busy but clean and comfortable.
Do I assume that all 380's use these stands and the smaller aircraft use the T5 stands? The corridors were cold and damp with wet floors on the airbridges from the upper deck. 2 immigration staff directing UK pax to use the electronic gates. No baggage trolleys at baggage reclaim.
When is the CEO or top staff of HAL going to visit this chaos when the airport starts each morning
T5 needs to get its act together, HAL do not deserve a another runway.
Changi was busy but clean and comfortable.