airport masterplan

The LBA masterplan takes shape

Airport Masterplan

To find out more about the Airport Masterplan download the attached PDF documents.

Summary of the Masterplan

Final Masterplan 

Original Masterplan 

Masterplan consultation

During the Masterplan consultation period,
comments were received from a wide variety of  Stakeholders and individuals.
We have taken on board the views expressed and have been able to incorporate many of the suggestions in the final version of the Masterplan.

Below is a record of the main comments received and our response to them.

We are very grateful to all those people and organisations for their views and for the interest taken in the Airport and its future development.                                

Leeds Bradford International Airport Draft Masterplan Consultation

1. Introduction

Consultation on the draft Masterplan was undertaken from November 2005 to March 2006. This took the form of letters to statutory consultees and stakeholders as well as providing information to the public using the airport website, mobile exhibitions and by providing and sending information direct to people and organisations that requested it. Information was also published in local newspapers and on local radio. 

A review of the comments from consultees and respondents has been undertaken and is set out below under the section headings outlined in the masterplan document.

2. Objectives of the Masterplan

Few comments were received in regard to the aims and objectives of the Masterplan. One respondent thought we should include additional objectives to minimise climate change and atmospheric and overall surface pollution. We agree and will add these to our objectives.

3. The Airport now and the Future of the Airport

One respondent pointed out some inconsistencies in statements on the UDP. These will be corrected.

Most respondents accepted that the airport has a major role to play in supporting the Leeds City Region economy and welcomed the growth in both jobs and economic contribution that the airport would bring in the coming years. However, one respondent queried whether the emphasis on indirect and induced jobs was accurate and 2 respondents felt that foreign travel would reduce jobs in the UK and not benefit rural tourism. Therefore, our figures did not represent the full picture. Others considered that the airport offered a gateway for inbound tourism and business visitors as well as playing a part in the Airedale growth area proposed in the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and as an engine for growth for the Leeds City Region.

We accept that there are a number of arguments on this issue. We have undertaken work on this subject as have many other airports and we believe that the evidence available and the comments of many stakeholders overwhelmingly supports the view of the economic benefits expressed.

We have updated the Leeds City Region plan at Figure 2.2

4. Passenger Forecasts

A number of respondents considered that our passenger forecasts were conservative and understated. Another thought that they reflected demand and were inconsistent because of a considerably lower growth rate in the later years. This is indeed just what we are expecting; the extraordinary growth that has been evident in the last few years and forecast over the next 2 to 3 years is expected to slow down to around 3.5% per annum from around 2009/10. We believe that once new operators and routes have been established and consolidated growth will continue, but at a lower rate. In setting the forecasts note also has been taken of potential occurrences that may affect growth in the future. Consequently, we have reviewed the passenger forecasts again and accept that they may have been slightly understated overall. As a consequence the passenger forecasts have been revised slightly upwards as indicated in the 2nd draft of the Masterplan.

5. Freight

There were few direct comments concerning freight. One respondent suggested that the risks and barriers to attracting freight should be identified. Two others felt that freight expansion was not sustainable.

One of the respondents noted that freight throughput had fallen since 1997 and that that the claimed association between airport growth and economic performance of the surrounding area does not hold.

We agree that any growth in freight should be undertaken in a sustainable way. We do not anticipate that Leeds Bradford would become a major freight operator. We are also not making any specific claims about economic performance in regard to freight that is linked to passenger throughput. However, there is scope for an increase in flown freight either in the holds of passenger carrying aircraft or by pure freight aircraft. The airport does not expect to handle large wide-bodied freighters on a regular basis, but could operate niche services handling small parcels and high value or perishable items. Such traffic would then clearly bring associated economic benefits to the Region. We will add to the text to address both the points raised above.

6. Employees

This is generally covered at item 3. We will add Full Time Equivalent (FTE) as suggested by one respondent to the employment figures quoted in the text.

7. Infrastructure Proposals

7.1 Terminal Buildings

Only four comments were received directly about the terminal building proposals. Three thought that the developments should be brought forward to ensure that facilities were in place early enough. The other respondent considered that the text should emphasise the landscape and urban design principles that should be embodied in these development proposals.  Another considered that proposals should be put forward for dealing with grey water discharge.

One respondent suggested that the proposed railway station be integrated into a new terminal building.

Whilst, the Masterplan sets out options for terminal development, the actual development plan can be accelerated or alternatively slowed down to reflect the actual need. We will add text to reflect the landscape and urban design principles. We take on board the sentiment for dealing with grey water. The Airport Company will work towards improved methods of waste disposal, recycling and energy reduction. This detail however will not be reflected in the Masterplan which is a strategic outline development document.

It is intended that any railway station would be closely linked to the terminal building. Whilst, it is not feasible to integrate a station directly within the terminal, it could be linked in a similar way to Manchester Airport via a covered walkway. This would be addressed in the detailed planning for this project. 

7.2 Aircraft Parking Areas

No specific comments were received about aircraft parking areas.

7.3 Runway Configuration

No specific comment was raised over the operational capability of the runway. Three respondents suggested that a runway extension should be undertaken without delay.

7.4 Parallel Taxiways

One respondent objected to the phase one parallel taxiway in principle because it extended into the Greenbelt.

The Airport has already applied for this small area of land to be included in the Airport operational boundary in the Review of the Leeds UDP.

7.5 Airfield Buildings and Equipment

The respondent who objected to the parallel taxiway above also objected to the use of Greenbelt land for airport purposes. A second respondent was also concerned about the negative impact on the landscape, the visual intrusion and loss of tranquillity.

Another respondent was concerned about access to these areas and whether Scotland Lane would be affected.

The additional land identified for airport buildings is already flanked on two sides by airport operational land. Whilst it is accepted that this is currently Greenbelt, we consider that with careful planning and good landscaping, the impact of the areas proposed would be minimal, with little visual intrusion from the north or from Scotland Lane. Access to the areas on the eastern side of the airfield would either be by the new road or an internal airport road only. In Section 8.1 of the Masterplan, we indicate the importance of safeguarding the rural aspect of Scotland Lane and its environs. In this scenario (if residents agree) no access to the airport at all would be available from Scotland Lane.

7.6 Hotel and Office Development

One respondent queried whether there was sufficient space on the site designated for a hotel, offices and the railway.

Depending on the exact nature of the design, we believe these facilities could be integrated together in the area designated in the plan together with the adjacent land allocated in the Leeds UDP for employment purposes.

7.7 General Aviation and Other Support facilities

No specific comments were received on these proposals save to query whether it is intended to open up the access from Bayton Lane.

The Airport has no plans to access the south side of the airport from Bayton Lane. The current access to the airport boundary provides access only for emergency vehicles. It is recognised that in its present form Bayton Lane is a country road and would not be suitable for access to the airport.

8. Surface Access

Surface access issues raised the largest interest from consultees, especially in association with public transport. Two respondents felt that more information should be made available about the wider benefits of the proposed road and rail links and that reference should be made to the 'Northern Way'. Two respondents thought some idea should be given of when the road and rail links might be provided.

Two other respondents suggested that better links should be made to Bradford including the possible upgrade of the A658. Another considered that the wider transport impacts of airport expansion on the highway network and associated traffic congestion should be more closely examined.

Another respondent considered the Airport should explore further the bus corridor development along the A65 with the local authority.

One respondent considered that there should be a clear linkage between further permitted development and the achievement of pre-defined modal split targets.

The majority of respondents considered that surface access improvements were needed. There was also interest and support of the 'park and ride' proposal.
Some respondents felt that there should be more information on the funding options for the proposals with detail of the timing for the schemes. Four respondents questioned the viability of funding for the road and rail proposals.

Of all the responses received in regard to the road and rail proposals, 28 respondents considered that the rail scheme should go ahead and 20 respondents supported the road proposals. Eight respondents were opposed to the road scheme for environmental reasons and three respondents did not support the rail link on the same grounds. Seven respondents were concerned that airport expansion would bring more congestion on the roads.

Some respondents on surface access issues were also keen to see other public transport improvements such as the introduction of further bus services to adjacent towns and villages whilst some others supported the development of the Green Transport plan for staff. One respondent went further and wanted more information on the Green Transport Plan in regard to delivery, monitoring and enforcement, suggesting penalties for not meeting targets.

We believe that there is general support for the surface access proposals. Clearly, there are issues to resolve the most important being the sympathetic integration of the schemes into the environment and with the minimum effect on local residents. Moreover, it is accepted that the matter of funding the proposals will prove a challenge.

Both the road and rail proposals together with the 'park and ride' facility are schemes that are of regional significance and not just a benefit to the airport. Located strategically within the Leeds City Region, we consider that the airport should be an integrated part of the regional transport infrastructure. It is intended to develop this philosophy and to work with stakeholders to reflect these proposals within the Local Transport Plan, the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Local Development Framework. The detail of these schemes, therefore, needs to be developed in terms of priority, funding and design alongside the other work being undertaken to improve the regional transport infrastructure. The Masterplan simply sets the scene as a strategic planning document and is not intended to include some of the detail that some respondents thought necessary.

However, we will include more information in the Masterplan on the wider benefits to the Region of the road and rail schemes and include reference as appropriate to the 'Northern Way'. We will also explore with local authorities what other improvements could be made to the local road network to improve access in general and from Bradford in particular, together with the impacts of additional traffic on local roads. In association with other stakeholders, we will also look at ways of minimising the impact of vehicular travel and road congestion. Furthermore, we will continue to work with Metro and the bus companies to introduce new and additional bus services as they become viable and to identify more fully the scale of public transport infrastructure and services required.

It is not proposed to provide detail on the Green Travel plan for staff in the Masterplan; it forms part of the Surface Access Strategy where it is set out in more detail. Whilst, we will set targets for achievement and will use our best endeavours to deliver them, the system is yet to develop sufficiently and provide reasonable travel alternatives for staff to travel to work. However, we will progress the initiative to ensure that it is meaningful and adds some substance as part of the sustainable development of the airport.

9. Car Parking

Three respondents expressed concerns over the expansion of car parking facilities that were not appropriate environmentally and reflected demand management. Three respondents considered car park decking should be provided and one of these considered that a greater commitment should be given to the provision of decking to reduce land take and that more landscaping should be indicated around the proposed car parks. Additionally, this respondent thought more information should be given about the provision of staff car parking and that reference should be made to off-site/ remote car parking.

We accept that some respondents would be opposed to the expansion of car parking. However, the airport is committed to the principle of cost-effective decking and to appropriate landscaping. We do intend to provide landscaping and screening around the car parks in a similar way to that already provided and this would extend along the eastern boundaries with Scotland Lane. Clearly, any planning approval will almost certainly require that this is undertaken and we will be pleased to work with the local authority and local residents groups to provide a satisfactory solution to this matter. Furthermore, the whole question of integrating these developments into the surrounding landscape will be thoroughly examined when designing these facilities together with effective and appropriate drainage solutions.

The Airport has no control over private business enterprises that operate off-site parking. Whilst, the comment in regard to this kind of operation is understood and noted, it is not proposed to include it in the Masterplan. In regard to on-site car parking, we have developed a Car Parking Strategy that forms part of the wider Surface Access Strategy.

We will make reference in the Masterplan for the provision of staff car parking.

10.   Mitigation of Impacts

10.1 Environmental Management

One respondent considered that environmental management should include future progress and how it would be delivered.

We understand the point and agree that progress and delivery needs to be considered and actioned. We believe that this detail should be addressed in our environmental policy and strategy and not the Masterplan.

10.2 Landscape and Urban Design Issues

Only one comment was received on this issue; the respondent thought that bullet points from the Landscape and Urban Design Study should be included as well as referring to the ecological survey and key biodiversity issues, implementation plans and enhancement measures.

We will add text to the Masterplan to strengthen these points.

10.3 Surface Water

Apart from the comment raised in connection with the treatment of grey water mentioned in the section covering the terminal building, the only other comments received were from one respondent seeking reassurance that proper account was being taken of surface water run-off and another requesting clarification of the location of the reed bed.

The Masterplan does show areas set aside for surface water drainage. The Airport accepts that some of the projects proposed will require robust drainage schemes to deal with surface water run-off. These will be fully addressed as projects are planned in detail.

10.4 Air Quality

Two respondents requested quantification on how aircraft emissions will impact on air quality and how this could be mitigated. Another suggested that we should report the number of days when the limits are exceeded. Six other respondents were concerned about the effect aircraft emissions might have on air quality.

As stated in the Masterplan, the Airport intends to improve air quality where possible. Monitoring of NO2 is undertaken and reported to comply with a planning condition. We expect to improve and refine our method of monitoring air quality in line with EU requirements and industry standards.

The Airport is a signatory of the Sustainable Aviation initiative that has established a comprehensive programme for long-term reductions in aviation's impact on the environment. This includes:

* Limiting climate change impact by improving fuel efficiency and co2 emissions by 50% per seat kilometre by 2020 compared with 2000 levels

* Improving air quality by reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80% over the same period.

* Establishing a common system for reporting of total CO2 emissions and fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005, and pressing for aviation's inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme at the earliest possible date.

We will continue to play our part in the Sustainable Aviation initiative and be involved in delivering improvements to mitigate the effects of aviation activities.

10.5 Aircraft Noise

One respondent asked for clarification of the statement 'some increase in night-time passenger services'. Another pointed out that the presence of aircraft undermines tranquillity, and that information on the effects of aircraft noise on the surrounding areas should be included in the Masterplan.

Seven other respondents registered their concern about the effects of aircraft noise on their community.

We will clarify the statement above on night-time passenger services. We will provide details of the work carried out by the Civil Aviation Authority on noise modelling for the years 2006, 2011 and 2016 covering both day and night time activity and add appropriate wording to the Masterplan text. We trust that those interested in examining the modelling will be able to see that even in 2016 there is only a slight increase in the onset of annoyance contour (57 dB (A) Leq) with little change to the current noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the airport.  The figures published by government in the RASCO document were incorrect by some margin and therefore understandably were misleading.  

10.6 Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

One respondent asked who carried out the SA and for an explanation of social inclusion. The Countryside Agency kindly furnished us with a Rural Proofing check- list for aviation developments that we will use as required.

One respondent asked whether a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Masterplan would be produced and felt that the meaning of the second column, second paragraph on page 45 was not clear.

The term social inclusion has now been replaced by 'economic inclusion' and this will be defined in the text.

It is our intension to undertake environmental assessments on major projects. We believe that environmental assessments would be either a statutory requirement or undertaken as good practice. They will therefore inform the detailed planning process when a particular development is brought forward.

We will rewrite the paragraph at page 45 mentioned above.

11. Consultation

One respondent felt that it would have been beneficial if the Sustainability Appraisal had been appended to the Masterplan. Only three other comments were received on the consultation process specifically about the mobile exhibition. Two people were concerned that the exhibition was not available at an evening or weekend session and another thought that the location at Otley was not prominent enough. Another respondent specifically made a comment supporting the manner in which the consultation exercise had been undertaken.

Another respondent asked how would stakeholders know what response the Airport would make to their comments after the consultation process. This paper is the general response to stakeholders on comments made during the consultation process.

We did publish the locations and times in local newspapers and on local radio as well as on the airport website. We had originally hoped to have a number of weekend exhibitions but we had to comply with the wishes of our hosts. We felt that in the circumstances that our locations, many of which were at local supermarkets, were well placed and we certainly attracted a lot of visitors many who were also Christmas shopping. In addition, an exhibition was available in the airport arrivals concourse.

We did make the Sustainability Appraisal available to those respondents who wished to see it.

12.Longer Term Proposals

One respondent considered more certainty and realism would be needed on some post 2016 proposals where a long lead-in time is required.

With certain long-term projects we intend to work closely with appropriate Stakeholders to ensure as far as possible a robust planning framework is established with as reasonable level of detail as possible.

13. General Responses

A number of respondents provided generic responses highlighting subjects such as the importance of the increased economic activity that the growth in the airport would bring and that it would act as a significant gateway to tourists and business visitors. They supported the need to improve surface access as set out in the Masterplan, whilst taking proper account of environmental and sustainability issues. 

14. Conclusion

It has been encouraging that so many Stakeholders have taken time to carefully consider the proposals put forward in the draft Masterplan and to respond accordingly.

We have also taken the time to consider all the comments received and the main thrust of responses has been recorded in this report. The masterplan has also been modified and changed to reflect a large number of the comments received. A number of themes emerged which are discussed below.

Clearly there are concerns about the environment and the location of the airport within the Greenbelt. There are also a few respondents who consider the airport should be either restricted in its growth or not develop at all. However, the vast majority of respondents consider that the airport is an increasingly important asset for the City Region and that the airport should be developed in line with the draft Masterplan. Just about all respondents considered that environmental issues were important and needed to be addressed, but that these should be balanced with the economic and social issues.

Some of the environmental issues and effects of the proposed railway worried some residents. Understandably, they wanted to know whether their homes or their quality of life would be affected. Similarly, some respondents had concerns over the environmental effects of a new road. However, many respondents considered that the surface access improvements were needed and that the new proposals whilst having an effect on the environment, would also bring wider benefits to the Region, as well as local benefits, especially around Horsforth, Rawdon and Yeadon. Additionally, there were respondents who thought that the surface access proposals were appropriate, but considered that funding might be difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, those respondents were encouraging and urged the airport to work with Stakeholders to deliver the proposals and to include them within appropriate Regional plans. 

It is anticipated that the final version of the Masterplan will be available in early summer 2006. It should be noted that this document is considered to be a key strategic planning document for the airport with no formal statutory status. It is intended that it will be reviewed every 5 years or at a time to coincide with other local plans. Consultation on major projects will be undertaken and discussed with both local residents and Stakeholders as appropriate.

The airport will continue to develop a dialogue with local residents and amenity groups and work with local councils and other agencies to develop the key issues raised in the Masterplan.

Any comments should be sent by completing the contact us form here

or by post to:

The Managing Director
Leeds Bradford International Airport
LS19 7TU