Leeds Bradford Airport planning proposal.

Proposal: To erect a new Terminal building and extend flying hours, with a view to increasing the number of flights in and out of the airport.

In my view, the proposal to build a new modern Terminal building is welcome, as is also the intention to develop the airport to accommodate the growth in the public’s demand for better and wider services.

However, there are several highly concerning issues raised with this proposal, which mean I cannot support it in its present form.

Noise pollution.

My primary concerns are with regard to air and noise pollution.

The public expects, indeed demands, the provision of air travel so they may go on holiday, visit relatives and friends, and attend to business. The question is how best to achieve this without adding greatly to the present levels of pollution?

With regard to air pollution, the newer aircraft issue fewer pollutants into the air than the older ones did and further research, which is being driven by the government, is ongoing to find new ways to reduce the carbon footprint still further towards zero. This won’t be easily and quickly achieved, but has to be our short-term goal for the immediate future.

As regards noise pollution, an increase in flights, which is expected to expand to accommodate an increase in passengers from 4m to 7m people, will only get worse, if the present flight plans are approved. Aircraft have a designated flight-path to follow when taking-off and landing, called the Noise Preferential Route (or NPR). This NPR has a margin of tolerance on either side, termed the ‘swathe’, to allow for flight fluctuations in exceptional circumstances.

The Noise Preferential Route (NPR)

The diagram shows the existing NPR alongside what we believe could be delivered as a suitable alternative that completely avoids Burley and Menston.



The NPR for the majority (80%) of flights taking-off from the airport is over the fields between the villages of Burley and Menston. However, according to residents under the ‘swathe’ (including myself), most flights rarely follow the NPR and fly within the ‘swathe’, which means over the top of residential housing. Actually following the NPR appears to be the exception!

This NPR was agreed in years gone by, as the obvious flight-path, which was straight down the Wharfe Valley following the river, had previously been claimed by the RAF as military airspace and was not available. That has now all changed, as the RAF have withdrawn from its use, and it is now available to the airport authorities to make application to use, which they are presently refusing to do! It is my belief that this alternative route would provide an elegant solution to one of the primary issues currently being experienced and which is of the greatest concern to residents.

Full details with regard to the issues involved and the potential solution, along with a survey poll, can be seen at: www.haveyoursayatlba.co.uk

However you may view this development, it is imperative that you make your views known by the closing date of Tuesday 16th June 2020 on the Leeds MDC website at: https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/ and then enter 20/02559/FU in the search box, which will take you to the application summary page where you can read other people’s comments and make your own.

Please note that there are a lot of entries in support of the airport’s proposals from people who do not live in our villages and only a few comments from residents. If you wish to see an improvement in air and noise pollution in our villages, this may be your one and only real chance. Please make your voice heard.

Cllr Gerry Barker.

Comments (1)

  1. Bob F

    Talk to almost anyone at LBA about carbon emissions and they’re quick to point out that their responsibility ends at with the proposed New Terminal Building. That’s to say that they can only offset the carbon footprint of the new building. That offsetting of carbon is to be mitigated through the purchase of Carbon Credits. In the past ‘Carbon Offsetting’ was widely criticised as ineffective, but things have moved on right? Well that appears not to be the case.

    It may therefore come as quite a surprise that Carbon Credits are once again in the spotlight.

    Control carbon offsetting to prevent fraud, says Carney

    CARBON offsetting is at risk of money laundering and fraud, a new task force headed by Mark Carney has said, as it lays out measures to regulate the market.

    Mr Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England and an adviser to Boris Johnson on climate change, has set up a private-sector task force to establish a “credible” market for carbon offsets, which have been dismissed by critics as “greenwashing“.

    Businesses and consumers can pay to offset polluting activities such as flights with projects that suck up greenhouse gases, such as tree planting, but the market is largely informal and overseen by a variety of different bodies.

    The first report from Mr Carney’s task force warns that there is large scope for money laundering, as prices are not regulated. It also warns there has been evidence of fraud, as carbon credits are sold multiple times for the same project.

    It calls for the development of regulations that match international banking standards.

    The establishment of the task force comes after an investigation by The Daily Telegraph earlier this year raised concerns over the validity of offsetting projects around the world. The investigation found deforestation in one offsetting project in Madagascar that was intended to protect the trees to sequester carbon.

    Mr Carney said there was a need for significantly more carbon offsets if the world was to limit global warming to 1.5C. While offsets should not be used as an alternative to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, he said the market “presents an enormous green investment opportunity”.

    Carbon offsetting markets have tended to be concentrated in developing countries, where there is significant scope for forestry projects and incentives to switch to renewable energy.

    There are growing calls for a domestic carbon offsetting market in the UK, which could provide tens of millions in annual funding for nature projects.