►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Thank
you
chair
good
afternoon,
everyone.
This
is
john
grieve
in
governance
services.
The
meeting
will
begin
shortly.
If
you've
not
done.
A
C
I
noticed
we're
live
chair.
D
Over
to
you,
thank
you,
john
yes,
that
was
quicken.
I
was
expecting
you
to
give
the
word
and
go
on
the
webcast,
but
somebody's
be
used
to
it
anyway
good
afternoon.
Everyone
and
welcome
to
this
remote
meeting
of
the
city
plans
panel.
My
name
is
councillor
jim
mckenna
and
I
will
be
chairing
today's
meeting
city
plans.
Panel
deals
with
applications
from
the
city
center,
as
well
as
the
biggest
and
largest
most
significant
applications
to
councils
receives.
D
D
D
D
I
ask
for
your
assistance
and
patience
while
I
go
through
the
process
in
order
to
avoid
disruption
to
the
meeting.
Should
I
lose
internet
connectivity,
I
propose
that
we
appoint
a
vice
chair
who
could
step
in
during
my
absence.
Can
I
therefore
move
neil
walsh
to
be
that
person
and
invite
members
to
second
emotion.
D
I've
seen
that
yes
I'll
allow
a
few
seconds.
Okay,
I
take
that
that's
been
agreed.
E
Sorry
about
that
or
having
trouble
unmuting
myself,
councillor
david
blackburn.
Finally,
in
wortlywood.
D
Well,
councillor
caroline
groon
has
given
her
apologies.
B
D
Thank
you
for
agreeing
to
substitute
denise
councillor,
graham
latte.
D
Thank
you,
counselor
paul
wadsworth,.
D
You
paul
and
finally
councillor
neil
walshaw.
N
Hi,
chair
hi,
everybody
councilman
warshaw
heading
in
high
park
ward.
I'm.
B
D
B
Hamilton
substituting
for
councillor.
C
D
Thank
you,
jonathan.
D
Thank
you,
daljud
martin
elliott,
please
afternoon.
D
Martin
carol
cunningham.
O
D
Thank
you,
nikki
diol,.
J
D
Is
there
somebody
substituting
for
julian
highways,
questions
may
well
come
up
yeah.
I
Hello
chair,
it's
andrew
thickett
highways
and
transportation.
I'm
substituting
for
julian
today.
D
Oh,
thank
you
andrew
pam,
warburton.
D
Thank
you
palm
and
you're
the
person
who's
put
all
this
together
and
you
and
john.
So
thank
you
for
that
john
greaves.
Please.
D
Likewise,
john,
thank
you
for
all
your
support
and
help
in
putting
this
together
no
easy
task.
Thank
you.
Moving
on
to
agenda
item
one
over
to
you,
john.
Please.
I
I
P
I'll
assume,
that's
none
under
agenda.
A
Apologists
for
absence
from
councillor
carol,
angry
and
peter
gruen
and
councillor
khan
and
we've
got
castle,
brooks
hamilton
and
reagan
substituting
today.
Thank
you,
chair.
D
Thank
you,
john.
Thank
you.
Moving
on.
Can
we
go
to
agenda
item
six,
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
on
the
third
of
september
and
with
your
permission
I
will
do
the
usual
and
go
through
with
page
by
page,
starting
with
page
seven
on
my
agenda.
D
D
There's
three
issues:
there
isn't
it.
I
understand
the
report
will
be
coming
to
development
plans
panels.
Is
there
any
update
on
that
and
then
there's
the
matter
of
the
106
agreement,
which
council
grew
and
continually
asked
about.
D
C
Sorry,
chair
just
unmuting
on
the
on
the
work
with
regard
to
students.
Colleagues
in
the
strategic
policy
team
are
looking
at
that
work
and
we
will
be
taking
a
paperback
to
development
plan
panel
as
as
planned
and
on
the
section
106
agreement.
If
this
one
relates
to
this
with
these
leads
issues,
then
we
are
making
some
good
progress
with
that.
I
understand
it's
now
been
signed.
D
Oh
good,
thank
you
david,
I'm
sure
he
would
have
asked
me
about
it.
So
at
least
it
keeps
her
on
the
agenda.
Moving
on
to
page.
D
Can
we
agree
that
they're
a
correct
record
I'll,
take
silence
as
affirmative?
Thank
you
for
that.
Moving
on
to
agenda
item
eight,
can
I
invite
carol
cunningham
please
to
introduce
this.
J
D
J
Okay,
that's
fine.
Can
I
just
point
out
that
we've
also
got
with
us
today,
polly
cook,
who
is
the
chief
office
of
sustainable
energy?
If
members
have
any
questions
of
her
and
then
we've
also
got
eve
rude
house
who
is
our
chief
officer
from
our
economic
development
team,
we've
also
got
a
representative
from
wsp
who
is
here
as
well?
If
you
want
to
ask
them
some
questions,
so,
could
I
have
the
presentation
please
pam.
J
Could
I
have
slide
number
one
two,
please
so
we're
here
today
to
discuss
the
application
up
at
the
airport.
Since
the
panel
report
was
written,
we've
seen
received
a
further
35
letters
of
objection
and
a
further
five
letters
of
support
which
raised
no
additional
issues
from
what
are
already
included
in
the
report
in
front
of
you.
We
have
also
received
an
economic
report
from
galba
which
gives
their
assessment
into
the
updated
socio-economical
environmental
statement.
J
This
has
only
been
recently
received,
so
officers
have
not
had
opportunities
to
consider
and
report
back
on
this
in
terms
of
the
application.
As
you
can
see,
it's
got
a
very
long
description
and
but
it
basically
relates
to
two
main
matters.
The
first
matter
is
a
new
terminal
building
and
the
associated
works
that
go
along
with
that
which
I'll
explain
shortly
and
also
a
change
in
the
flight
period,
with
the
nighttime
flight
period
being
reduced.
J
J
This
is
the
red
edge
of
the
application
site.
I
think
we
all
know
where
the
airport
is
it's
on.
The
edge
of
the
suburbs
of
eden
up
in
the
greenbelt
to
the
north
of
the
site
is
a
sap
allocation
for
the
unemployment
hub,
and
the
railway
station
which
may
come
along
is
located
to
the
southeast
of
the
red
edge,
although
it
is
off
actually
off
this
map,
you'll
notice
on
here,
as
well
as
the
red
edge
covering
the
actual
terminal
and
the
runway
and
everything
there
is
also
an
extension
to
the
southeast
corner.
J
That
includes
one
of
the
biodiversity
areas
that's
being
put
forward
as
part
of
this
planning
application,
and
then
the
red
edge
that
you
can
see
to
the
northern
part
of
the
site
on
the
outskirts
of
geisley
is
also
the
second
biodiversity
area
that
has
been
being
put
forward
as
part
of
the
screen
scheme.
Can
I
have
slide
four
please.
J
J
If
you
have
a
look
where
it
says,
sentinel
car
park
on
that
plan,
just
south
of
that
is
the
current
viking
car
park,
and
this
will
be
extended
as
part
of
the
scheme
for
the
relocated
car
parking
spaces
that
are
lost
as
part
of
the
development.
J
The
potential
railway
station
is
to
the
southeast
of
the
car
parking
area
on
the
east
side
of
the
aprons
airports
apron.
So
if
you
look
where
it
says,
lee's
bradford
airport,
to
the
south
of
that
car
parking
area,
if
you
go,
if
you
go
to
the
east,
that
is
where
the
railway
station,
if
it
comes
forward,
would
be
located,
and
I'm
sure
you
probably
already
all
know
that
anyway,
can
we
move
on
to
slide
number
five,
please.
J
This
is
an
aerial
showing
you
closer
upper
to
lee's
bradford
airport,
so
you
can
see
on
the
left
hand,
side
of
the
screen.
That's
the
existing
terminal
building
and
probably
all
been
to
it,
and
that
building
at
the
moment
will
remain
and
we
will
get
into
planning
application
in
the
future
for
its
proposed
new
use,
which
at
this
stage
we
don't
know
it
will
be
used
in
their
interim,
because
the
traffic
control
tower
is
in
that
building
which
needs
to
remain
there
in
the
interim
period.
J
The
new
terminal
building
will
be
located
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
this
aerial.
So
if
you
can
see
where
it
says
long
stay
car
park
on
the
on
the
slide
there
on
the
right
hand,
side
there's
a
square
area
of
apron.
There
there's
an
airplane
on
it
at
the
moment,
and
that
is
where
the
new
terminal
building
will
be
located.
J
There
is
an
existing
fuel
farm
there,
which
you
can
probably
see
on
that
aerial
and
that
fuel
farm
will
be
relocated.
What
this
aerial
doesn't
do
and
we
saw
when
we
went
on
site
back
in
january.
It
doesn't
show
you
the
difference
in
levels
between
that
long
stay
car
park
and
the
apron
there's
quite
a
significant
bank
there.
J
If
you
can
all
remember
from
when
we
parked
on
that
car
park
below
and
had
a
look
up,
if
I
could
have
a
slide
six
now
please
so
this
is
showing
you
the
sight
plan
for
the
development
and,
as
you
can
see,
the
new
terminal
building
is,
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
the
plan
in
front
of
you
and
it's
it's
sort
of
colored.
An
olive,
green,
color
and
you'll
also
see
on
that.
J
J
If
I
could
have
slide
seven,
please
so
I'm
going
to
briefly
go
through
the
floor
plans
for
the
new
building.
Just
to
give
you
a
flavor
of
what
the
new
terminal
will
look
like
now.
The
green
arrows
on
these
plans
are
people
who
are
departing
and
that's
the
journey
that
they
will
take
when
they
come
to
the
airport
and
the
red
arrows
are
the
people
who
have
arrived
at
lee's
bedford
airport
and
will
believe
him.
J
Can
I
have
the
next
level
please
so
on
this
next
level,
you
will
see
that
the
green
area-
this
is
the
people
who
are
departing.
This
is
the
main
terminal
hall,
with
all
the
checking
desks
and
behind
this
area
is
all
the
baggage
screening
and
the
loading
that
will
then
take
the
package
onto
the
airplanes.
J
The
part
for
the
arriving
passengers
on
this
level
is
the
baggage
reclaim
area,
and
then
they
will
go
through
customs
in
this
part,
and
then
they
will
also
go
into
the
arrival
hall.
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please?
This
is
the
next
floor
up,
and
this
is
basically
related
to
arrivals
only,
and
this
will
be
the
arrival
area
and
immigration
area
and
then
can
I
have
the
the
next
slide.
Please
slide
10..
J
This
is
the
final
floor.
This
is
where
the
passengers
who
are
departing
from
louise
bradford
airport
will
make
their
way
into.
This
will
have
the
passenger
screening
and
then
it
will
have
the
lounge
and
the
lounges
and
the
food
and
the
drinks
and
the
shops
for
all
the
departing
passengers
and
they'll
have
nice
views
out
either
way
over
into
the
countryside
and
over
onto
the
the
existing
runway.
J
J
And
then,
if
we
have
slide
12
that's
the
floor
above,
and
this
will
be
the
route
that
the
arrival
passengers
will
take.
So
they
will
both
come
in
and
go
in
on
different
floors
and
pardon
me,
can
I
have
the
next
slide.
J
Please
you've,
probably
all
seen
these
before
this
is
the
elevations
of
the
proposed
new
terminal
building,
and
this
one
gives
you
the
impression
now
of
the
ground
level
and
the
bank
on
which
the
new
terminal
building
will
be
placed,
and
you
can
see
at
the
front
this
front
entrance
lobby
that
will,
of
maybe
majority
glazing
and
we'll
have
elements
of
bronze,
champagne,
colored,
cladding
and
then
the
actual
main
terminal
building
behind
the
majority
of
this,
where
the
public
will
be
will
be
fully
glazed
and
the
elements
of
cladding
in
the
bronze
and
champagne
and
light
grain
are
back
of
house
areas.
J
This
is
showing
you
the
peers
that
we
talked
about
the
two-story
piers
and
again
these
will
have
glazing
in
so
people
can
see
either
either
way
over
out
to
the
countryside
and
onto
the
apron,
and
then
it'll
also
have
elements
of
cladding
and
glazing.
J
J
The
banking
will
be
proposed
to
be
have
a
wild,
a
wildflower
meadow
on
it
and
there
will
be
the
trees
within
the
car
parking
areas,
and
you
can
see
the
difference
here
between
what
the
cladding
and
what
the
glazing
elements
of
the
design
are
hoping
to
achieve.
You
can
see
immediately
outside
is
one
of
the
bus
shelters,
so
the
bus,
the
buses,
will
come
right
almost
to
the
front
door
of
the
of
the
terminal
under
the
new
arrangements.
J
Can
I
have
the
next
slide
please.
This
is
showing
you
a
view
from
behind
and
showing
you
the
appears
on
the
banking
and
the
car
parking
areas
and
the
rear
of
the
proposed
terminal
building.
J
Please-
and
this
is
showing
you
another
one
in
in
its
setting-
you
can
see
here
the
bus
station
to
the
front
and
in
front
of
that
bus
station
is
the
drop-off
areas
and
then
the
green
building
to
the
left
is
a
new
meet
and
greet
building
that
will
be
provided,
and
then
I
think
I've
got
one
more
slide
for
you
to
see
and
that's
just
showing
you
from
a
further
distance
with
all
the
the
car
parking
that
will
be
surrounding
you've
got
the
report
in
front
of
you
and
as
well
as
the
report
in
front
of
you.
J
You've
also
got
the
technical
briefing
that
was
given
to
members
a
few
weeks
ago
to
explain
some
of
the
more
complicated
aspects
of
the
scheme,
and
I
don't
intend
to
go
through
all
of
that
with
you
today.
J
The
main
issues
that
you
need
to
think
about
is
that
there's
ten
sections
to
the
position
statement
for
you
to
think
about
today
and
there's
nine
questions
that
are
to
be
asked
of
you
as
background
from
a
policy
point
of
view,
policy,
sp
12
of
the
core
strategy
is
relevant,
which
manages
the
growth
of
the
airport,
while
recognizing
that
further
growth
has
to
satisfy
a
number
of
criteria,
and
these
criteria
relate
to
surface
access,
improvements,
environmental
and
local
impacts,
including
visual
and
highway
issues,
with
climate
change
being
within
the
environmental
considerations
of
this
policy.
J
The
first
question
that
you
you're,
going
to
be
asked
relates
to
highway
and
transport
matters.
Officers
have
been
negotiating
with
the
applicants
on
this
matter
to
establish
a
surface
access
strategy
which
will
include
funding
for
public
transport,
to
encourage
passengers,
employees
to
move
towards
public
transport
to
the
airport
rather
than
the
single
use
of
car.
This
matter
is
still
ongoing
and
so
far
has
not
been
concluded.
J
If
there
is
sufficient
shift
from
the
use
of
the
car
park
onto
public
transport,
which
we
are
hoping,
then
there
will
be
no
need
to
increase
the
car
parking
numbers
except
to
replace
car
parking
loss
from
the
redevelopment
by
an
extension
to
the
existing
car
park.
If
the
conclusion
comes
that
we
do
require
additional
car
parking
in
this
area,
then
there
will
be
land
available
at
the
side
of
the
viking
car
park
to
accommodate
this,
and
this
provision
can
be
controlled
by
a
section
106
agreement.
J
The
proposal
also
involves
the
reconfiguration
of
the
highway
network
and
the
existing
car
parks
with
the
final
designs
of
these
still
being
discussed.
The
free
wonho
car
park
will
not
form
part
of
the
revised
car
parking
layout
with
the
applicants
stating
that
its
provision
encourages
people
to
travel
to
the
airport
in
a
car
which
is
not
sustainable.
J
J
As
explained
in
paragraph
10.15
of
the
report,
greenhouse
gas
emissions
are
categorized
into
three
scopes,
and
these
scopes
are
explained
further
in
the
technical
note
under
paragraph
3.2
in
terms
of
the
application,
members
need
to
be
aware
that
the
domestic
and
international
flights
cannot
be
included
in
the
carbon
emissions.
This
is
in
line
with
government
advice,
and
I
refer
you
to
the
relevant
policy
documents
related
to
this
matter.
J
J
The
third
question-
the
third
question
you'll
be
asked,
relates
to
air
quality,
with
the
predictive
increase
in
air
movements
as
a
result
of
this
application.
Having
a
negative
effect
on
air
quality,
the
predicted
increase
in
aircraft
movements
generated
by
the
development
will
not
be
significant
in
terms
of
air
quality,
and
this
can
be
mitigated
against
by
a
green
travel
plan
and
the
movement
of
the
vehicle
fleet
to
electric
cars,
buzzes
taxes,
etcetera.
J
The
first
issue
of
noise
is
during
construction
because
of
its
location
away
from
residential
properties
and
because
the
construction
works
will
tend
to
occur
during
the
day
and
because
we're
at
an
airport
with
which
already
generates
a
considerable
amount
of
noise.
The
noise
generated
during
the
construction
will
not
considered
to
be
detrimental
and
it
can
be
controlled
by
a
number
of
conditions.
J
J
J
J
The
information
has
been
submitted
that
the
additional
noise,
within
this
hour
shouldn't
have
a
detrimental
impact
due
to
the
fact
that
they'll
be
the
introduction
of
quieter
aircraft,
the
main
impact
of
the
aircraft
will
be
they'll,
be
able
to
operate
overnight,
which,
instead
of
having
a
limit
on
the
quote,
account
it
will
come
out
of
an
annual
quota
budget.
This
will
mean
that
there
will
be
more
airplanes
flying
overnight,
and
it
will
also
mean
that
the
noise
potentially
could
get
worse
in
the
short
term
until
quieter.
Aircraft
come
on
board
in
later
years,.
J
J
J
The
next
issue
it
relates
to
design
the
design
of
the
new
building,
is
modern,
simple
and
elegant,
whilst
also
achieving
brim
excellence,
as
well
as
being
zero
carbon.
It
successfully
uses
extensive
glazing
to
provide
an
inviting
a
period
appearance,
as
well
as
allowing
activity
into
the
building
to
be
viewed
while
allowing
views
out
in
terms
of
landscaping.
J
There
will
be
on-site
landscaping
around
the
building
and
around
the
proposed
car
parks,
which
will
help
soften
the
development,
and
you
can
see
that
on
some
of
the
cgi's
that
you've
seen
seen
today,
there
will
be
some
tree
lost
caused
by
the
development,
but
these
are
low
in
number
and
consist
of
low,
lower
category
trees
and
replacement
for
these
trees
will
be
provided
in
terms
of
off-site
planting.
This
can
be
accommodated
in
the
biodiversity
areas
that
I
showed
you
on
the
map
before,
but
there
will
be
no
landscaping.
J
J
J
D
You
carol
john,
is
there
any
speakers.
D
Any
speakers-
okay,
thank
you.
We
can
move
on
to
questions.
I
am
aware
that
we
have
represent
sorry.
I.
B
If
I
can
just
come
in
yeah
because
it's
a
position
statement,
the
the
applicant
does
have
a
right
to
speak,
so
they
are
going
to
down
to
speak
today.
D
Okay,
that's
fine
that
that
was
the
question
I
was
toying
with
at
the
moment,
but
thank
you
for
that
palm.
Can
we
take
that
visual
off
my
screen?
Please
I!
I
can
only
see
a
limited
amount
of
people.
D
The
applicants
please,
however,
they
want
to
deal
with
who
whoever
wants
to
come
in.
Q
Good
afternoon,
mr
chair
and
thank
you
all
very
much
for
this
opportunity,
just
to
say
a
few
words
about
the
proposal.
I
know
your
time
is
short,
so
I
won't
be
very
long
glad
to
begin
by
thanking
all
those
who've
taken
the
time,
I'm
so
sorry.
Before
I
begin,
I
should
point
out
you
did
ask
earlier
on.
Q
I
should
point
out
my
name's
hal
reese
and
I'm
the
ceo
of
chief
executive
officer
of
leeds
bradford
airport,
I'd
like
to
begin
by
thanking
all
of
those
members
of
the
public
have
taken
time
to
the
contribution
to
the
consultation
both
for
and
against.
I
think
the
debate
has
been
very
balanced
overall,
as
I
say,
I
won't
say
very
much,
except
to
highlight
three
key
things
that
I
think
define
this
proposal.
Q
The
first
is
modernization
the
existing
terminal
building,
which
I
hope
to
demolish
and
I'm
very
happy
to
to
commit
to
demolishing
the
building.
As
soon
as
I
can
relocate
the
tower,
the
existing
building
was
built
in
1965
and,
as
I'm
sure,
anyone
of
you
who've
used,
the
the
airport
in
recent
years
will
know,
is
not
really
capable
anymore
of
providing
the
levels
of
customer
service
that
the
modern
world
expects,
for
example,
in
relation
to
people
with
reduced
mobility
and
certainly
in
in
terms
of
sustainability.
Q
Q
The
second
area
is
in
the
surface,
access
area
and
we've
made
great
efforts
and
to
make
sure
the
surface
access
strategy
is
as
extensive
and
as
generous
as
possible
and
carol.
Cunningham
alluded
to
to
an
outstanding
issue,
which
we
have
a
proposal
in
front
of
officers
for
at
the
moment,
which
I
hope
will
result
in
lower
carbon
emissions
from
surface
access
by
2030
than
the
airport
currently
causes.
Q
So
I
hope
that
will
be
regarded
as
positive
and
the
third
area
is
in
in
relation
to
aircraft
and,
of
course,
aircraft
can't
be
counted,
but
I
I
don't
know
whether
any
of
you
have
seen
recently
some
of
the
press
releases
from,
for
example,
velocis,
which
is
a
synthetic
sustainable,
synthetic
aviation
fuel
plant
in
humberside
that
will
be
open
and
producing
by
2023,
and
also
yesterday
at
cranfield,
the
world's
first
hydrogen-fueled
electric-powered
commercial
aircraft
flew
for
an
hour,
and
I
think
both
of
those
developments
you
know
auger
in
a
very,
very
interesting
future.
Q
From
a
technological
perspective,
these
new
sustainable
environmental
technologies
for
aircraft
propulsion
are
coming
in
and
some
of
them
are
available
today.
The
third
area,
of
course,
is
socioeconomic
development.
Of
course
it's
150
million
pound
investment.
There
are
thereabouts
with
both
you
know:
short-term
jobs
in
conjunction
of
course,
much
longer
term.
Higher
paid
higher
value
jobs
as
the
airport
develops.
D
Thank
you
kyle
for
that
contribution.
Sorry,
I
I
didn't
introduce
you,
but
it's
not
easy.
When
I
have
all
these
that's.
D
Thank
you
and
it's
a
learning
process
for
every
one
of
us.
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you,
though
comments.
Welcome.
Can
I
move
on
then
to
members
who
may
have
questions
starting?
We
usually
go
the
other
way
around.
Don't
we
we
usually
go
to
the
bottom
of
this,
so
we'll
we'll
start
with
council
wall
shop.
N
Thanks
so
quite
a
few
questions,
I'm
probably
gonna
focus
at
least
initially
chair
in
and
around
the
subject
of
climate
change
and
climate
emergency,
a
little
perturbed
bordering
on
extremely
concerned
that
the
moment
advice
to
the
council
legal
advice
to
the
council
suggests
we
can't
consider
domestic
and
international
flights
emissions
within
our
consideration
of
this
application.
N
Now
that
would
seem
to
be,
I
think,
to
most
members
of
this
panel
somewhat
perverse
and
members
of
this
panel
be
aware
there
is
enough
legal
opinion
flying
around
that
you
could
spread
the
legal
papers
out
and
walk
from
here
to
london
without
actually
touching
the
m1
motorway,
there's
so
much
paperwork
around.
I
think
it's
really
important
as
a
panel.
N
So
I
think
just
as
I
started
here,
I'd
like
to
to
request
we
further
legal
work
is
done
on
this
legal
assessment
is
done
on
this,
including
up
to
an
including
independent,
further
council's
advice,
because
I
think
this
from
from
my
point
of
view
chair
this
question.
This
is
these
issues
regarding
domestic
and
international
fighter
missions
go
to
the
absolute
heart
of
this,
this
application.
N
Now
the
building
can
be
as
busy
as
we
want,
and
I
had
the
first
admit
it's
a
very
fine
building
with
very
fine
brienne
standards.
But
that's
not
what
this
building's
about.
This
is
about.
This
building
enables
and
handles
domestic
and
international
flights,
and
it's
really
rather
difficult
to
look
about
that
when
you
consider
making
places.
N
So
I'd
like
to
know
why
that's
currently
is
not,
but
it's
not
considered
domain
to
the
application.
Moving
on
to
go
look
into
paragraph
154
and
section
b
it
can.
The
question
is:
can
the
impacts
be
made
acceptable?
N
What
does
acceptable
mean
in
this
context
might
be
an
acceptable
looking
building,
but
it's
enabling
things
that
may
well
be
unacceptable.
So
I'd
like
some
a
view
on
that.
Please
and
again
I'd
like
to
put
that
forward
for
further
further
legal
consideration.
N
N
And
then,
looking
at
our
own
spatial
policy,
12.
iii
always
makes
me
chuckle.
It
needs
to
be
an
environmental
assessment
to
mitigate
adverse
environment
impacts
where
appropriate.
N
Well,
from
my
point
of
view
chair,
the
inverse
adverse
environmental
impacts
would
very
much
center
on
aviation
emissions,
irrespective
of
how
the
building
does
or
doesn't
perform
and
as
well
as
we
can
factor
in.
Of
course,
we
need
to
factor
in
surface
access
which
is
being
accepted
by
all
parties
and,
if
we're
considering
this
under
sp12,
how
does
that
factor
in
our
international
agreements?
We've
got
the
we've
got
the
paris
agreements.
We've
got
our
own
climate
change
act.
We've
got
our
own
declaration
of
climate
emergency.
N
How
does
that
come
in
I'd
like
some
more
information
on
that,
particularly
looking
at
domestic
fighter
missions
are
come,
do
come
under
the
paris
agreements?
How
does
this
not
come
under
that
as
well
like
some
clarity
on
that
and
again
further
legal
opinion
on
that
and
international
emissions?
That
is,
I
admit,
rather
wooly
at
the
moment,
with
the
icao
scheme,
which
I
I
don't
think
is
particularly
satisfactory.
N
It's
certainly
coming
under
under
review
intensity.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
questions
regarding
how
the
flight
emissions
are
factored
in
and,
like
I
said
that,
goes
to
the
heart.
So
I'd
like
some
clarity
on
that
and
then
I've
got
a
further
set
of
questions
to
follow
up
after
some
information
that,
if
that's
all
right,
chair.
D
Okay,
there
are
a
lot
of
questions
there,
neil,
as
you
quite
rightly
say,
and
some
of
them,
I
think,
will
need
some
work
by
technicians
and
officers
before
we
can
get
the
full
answers.
But
can
I
invite
david
to
come
in
and
ask
the
relevant
person
to
answer
some
of
those
questions?
C
Thank
you,
jen.
Thank
you
for
your
questions.
Council
walsh
on
the
legal
matters.
We're
going
to
ask
our
colleague,
matthew
hills
to
pick
up
on
on
those
on
policy.
Sp12
martin
elliot
can
kick
off
on
on
that,
but
other
colleagues
will
be
coming
in
as
well.
So
if
you
could
start
with
matthew,
please
chair,
if
that's
okay,
that's.
P
You
thank
you
david.
Thank
you,
chair,
well,
councillor
short,
we
do
already
have
a
acuity
instructed
actually
to
assist
us
with
the
progression
of
this
application,
so
what's
been
put
in
the
documentation
before
members
so
far
is
based
on
advice.
That's
been
given
by
him,
so
I
wouldn't
propose
this
afternoon
to
go
behind
his
advice
at
this
stage,
but,
of
course,
you've,
given
some
helpful
indication
as
to
the
areas
that
you
would
like
to
see
expanded
upon
next
time.
P
This
matter
comes
back
to
panel,
and
so
we'll
certainly
very
happily
take
those
matters
back
to
rqc
for
his
comments,
my
understanding
at
the
moment
in
terms
of
the
flight
emissions
and
your
question
as
to
why
we're
not
taking
those
into
account,
is
because
the
the
mitigation
for
domestic
and
international
flights
is
being
dealt
with
through
other
mechanisms,
so
international
flights,
for
example,
are
being
dealt
with
via
the
un
under
a
system,
acronymed
corsia,
and
so
that,
as
far
as
I
understand,
looks
at
flights
across
the
world
and
seeks
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
international
aviation
to
net
zero.
P
Similarly,
with
the
domestic
flights
within
the
uk,
that's
something
that
central
government
are
keen
that
we
look
at
nationally,
rather
than
than
regionally
the
logic
of
not
counting
those
when
we're
looking
at
carbon
emissions
in
relation
to
this
airport,
expansion
seems
to
me
to
lie
in
the
fact
that,
if
you
were
to
do
that,
you'd
almost
be
double
counting
the
mitigation
for
those
flights.
P
So
if
the
u.n,
for
example,
are
mitigating
all
the
international
flights
that
come
out
of
leeds
bradford,
if
we're
then
taking
that
into
account
as
well,
they're
mitigated
twice,
which
obviously,
in
terms
of
the
environment,
isn't
a
bad
thing,
but
in
terms
of
what
we
we
need
to
do
to
progress
this
application.
Is
it's
not
quite
right
to
do
so?
I
hope
that
helps
for
now.
P
As
I
say,
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
go
behind
the
advice
that
we've
already
received
from
our
qc,
but
hopefully
I
can
offer
you
some
reassurance
that
those
points
you've
raised
will
be
taken
back
to
him
and
the
next
time
this
comes
before
you
for
consideration.
Hopefully,
at
least
you
should
have
some
some
answers
that
you
seek
in
relation
to
those
points.
N
N
We
need
to
get
into
real
detail
on
this,
because
I
think
we
can
talk
about
legal
positions
and
double
counting
all
we
want,
but
I
think
we
need
to
be
mindful
at
all
times
of
the
real
world
implications
of
the
decisions
we
take,
because
clearly,
a
doubling
of
flights
is
a
is
an
extremely
significant
expansion
in
carbon
emissions.
I
mean,
if
we
look
at
our
table,
I
think
it's
well
over
an
increase
of
442
000
tons
of
chds
a
year
for
leads.
N
So
what
I'd
want
to
ask
further,
then,
is
if
this
permission
was
granted
and
that
was
impacted
onto
leads,
then
how
does
that
affect
our
reaching
a
carbon
budget?
A
net
zero
of
2030?
We
haven't
picked
the
net
zero
figure
of
2030
out
of
thin
air,
that's
based
on
hard
real
world
silence
and
a
climate
emergency.
Doesn't
really
mind
whether
we
double
triple
or
single
count,
anything
science
will
happen.
Physics
will
happen.
Biology
will
happen.
Chemistry
will
happen.
So
I
think
what
I'd
like
to
know
is,
I
think,
members
need.
N
What
are
the
changes?
Do
you
think
should
be
imposed
on
leeds
to
make
up
for
this
442
thousand
hundred
thousand
tons
of
carbon?
I
think
that's
a
question
that
we
as
a
city
gonna
need
to
need
to
have
up
for
public
discussion,
because
the
airport's
expansion
will
have
such
a
significant
effect
on
our
carbon
budget,
and
I
think
those
are
factors
that
members
of
this
panel
simply
cannot
ignore.
Thanks,
jeff.
Q
So
hello,
thank
you
very
much
for
for
asking,
I
think,
my
response
to
it.
I
won't
comment
on
the
carbon
budget
because
others
have
a
better
technical
view
of
what
counts
for
the
carbon
budget
and
what
doesn't.
But
what
I
would
say
is
that
you
know
we
shouldn't
get
ourselves.
The
extra
flights
to
which
council
of
warsaw
refers
will
happen
somewhere
else.
If
they
don't
happen
here
and
the
world
doesn't
care
where
the
carbon
comes
from.
Q
So
the
idea
really
is
is
to
try
and
get
people
to
fly
locally
and
to
try
to
reduce
the
emissions
that
we're
currently
expending
on
the
m1
and
the
m62
as
people
fly
from
other
airports,
so
the
flights
will
still
occur,
but
the
the
impact
on
leads
will
be
greater
if
we're
not
able
to
fly
locally
or
fly
more
locally
because
of
the
additional
road
use.
But
you
know
those
those
fights
will
still
happen.
They
will
happen
somewhere
else.
They
will
happen
further
away,
and
that's
that's
my
key.
That's
the
key
point
of
that.
N
Thank
you
kyle,
just
if
I
may
that
just
so
apologies
chair,
but
that
that's
a
we
if
that's
a
contention
the
applicant's
making,
then
that
needs
to
be
presented
to
to
to
panel
members
with
some
kind
of
evidential
base,
and
it
simply
won't
do
I
don't
think
to
present
an
argument
that
says
well.
If
we
don't
grant
this
expansion,
then
flights
will
just
happen
elsewhere,
because
if
people
around
the
country
are
mindful
of
these
issues,
then
those
flights
might
not
happen.
That
expansion
might
not
happen
elsewhere.
N
D
Thank
you,
council
wall
shop.
Can
I
bring
in
martin,
please
martin
elliott,
at
this
stage.
C
Thank
you,
chair,
just
just
really
to
follow
on
and
clarify
from
mr
hills's
explanation
to
council
of
wall
shawl
that
the
criteria
within
our
statutory
policy,
sp
12
really
does
depend
on
what
is
considered
to
be
within
our
gift
in
terms
of
assessing
the
the
the
impact
and,
therefore,
the
mitigation
necessary.
So
this
question
of
international
and
national
flights
being
dealt
with
through
other
mechanisms,
does
mean
that
the
policy
isn't
seeking
for
those
to
be
dealt
with
in
this
application.
In
order
to
fulfill
that
policy.
A
D
Yeah,
I
was
saying
liz
I
think
we
all
have.
I
certainly
had
I
I
thought
I
had
frozen,
but
if
we
can
get
back
to
martin
please
and
bear
in
mind
that
we
did
lose
a
little
bit
of
you,
your
contribution,
yeah.
C
Sorry,
joe,
I
don't
know
how
much
members
heard
of
that,
but
the
the
criteria
that
councillor
warsaw
was
referring
to
in
policy.
Sp12
says
that
environmental
assessment
and
agreed
plans
to
mitigate
adverse
environmental
effects
where
appropriate,
should
be
carried
out
now.
What
what
needs
to
be
clarified?
C
What
the
message
that
officers
are
getting
very
clearly
here
is
that
the
the
extent
of
those
emissions,
be
they
international,
national
or
local,
is
what
is
going
to
drive
compliance
with
with
that
aspect
of
criteria,
three
of
policy
sp-12
and
as
mr
hills
clarified,
the
advice
is
that
the
international
and
national
flights
are
outside
of
that.
That
criteria.
D
Thank
you,
martin
david.
C
Thank
you,
chad.
I
just
wanted
to
come
back
on
the
point
that
council
wall
shaw
had
raised.
Council
also
raised
a
valid
point
about
the
the
impact
of
the
airport's
emissions
upon
the
city
council's
2030
commitments
under
the
climate
change
emergency
and
it's
it's
the
relationship,
isn't
it
of
the
impact
of
the
airport
emissions
on
the
overall
carbon
budget
for
leads
and
the
implications
of
that
for
other
for
other
areas.
I
think
that's
something
chair.
We
need
to
take
away
and
discuss
more
with
with
polly's
team
and
colleagues
within
the
climate
commission
as
well.
C
So
we
can
look
at
that
in
the
round
within
the
context
of
the
reports
which
have
already
come
through
to
executive
board
chair
the
paper
that
went
on
the
17th
of
april
last
year
and
then
the
action
plan
paper
that
went
in
january
of
this
year,
so
it
does
need
to
be
looked
at
within
the
context
of
that
and
to
quantify
those
figures
and
the
impact
and
the
relationships
and
the
interdependencies
between
those
aspects.
So
we
can
look
at
that
chair
if
that
would
be
helpful.
D
Thank
you
david.
That's
very
helpful.
Can
we
move
on
then
and
invite
council
what
what's
word
paul
wattswood,
please.
M
I
hope
my
question
would
be
much
simpler
and
much
shorter
as
well,
because
I'm
a
simple
person,
it's
really
to
carol
is
my
question
and
it's
around
the
passenger
numbers.
A
lot
of
people
have
written
to
me
and
said
that
this
application
allows
the
airport
to
increase
their
passenger
numbers
from
four
million
to
seven
million.
Is
that
correct?
Or
is
it
a
previous
planning
consent
that
they
have
that
allowed
them
to
increase
their
passenger
numbers
to
from
four
million
to
seven
million,
which
they
don't
intend
to
use?
J
Right
from
my
understanding
is
that
they
were
given
planning
permission
in
2018
for
an
extension
to
the
terminal,
which
you
probably
all
remember,
and
as
part
of
that
application,
there
was
a
section
106
agreement
which,
and
it
allowed
them
to
expand
to
four
and
a
half
million
passengers,
and
they
can
extend
to
five
million
passengers
subject
to
a
surface
access
strategy
being
submitted.
J
J
I
can't
remember
which
section
now
there
is:
there
is
a
it
tells
you
a
progression
between
now
and
2030
as
to
when
they
expect
to
have
certain
number
of
passengers
at
a
certain
number
of
years.
So
I
hope
that
clarifies
the
question
for
you.
D
I
think
that
was
clear
is
that
okay,
paul
yeah,
that's
fine,
okay!
Moving
on
then
councillor
denise
reagan.
Please.
D
D
D
L
Q
The
answer
is
that
these
hackney
carriers
are
able
to
drop
off
and
collect
at
the
airport,
and
they
can
do
that
in
two
places.
They
can
either
do
it
in
the
free
parking
area
where
they
have
an
hour's
free
parking,
which
is
a
short
walk
from
the
airport
terminal
building,
or,
of
course,
they
can
do
so
through
the
express
car
park,
which
is
much
much
closer
to
the
terminal
building.
But
of
course,
which
there
is
a
small
charge
in
the
new
world
when
the
new
terminal
building
is
up.
I
I
mean
this
very
sincerely.
Q
I
would
prefer
people
to
come
by
bus
rather
than
by
taxi.
I
know
that
won't
always
be
possible,
but
some
of
the
aspects
of
the
surface
access
strategy
that
we're
putting
in
place,
for
example,
busing
from
leeds
station
direct
to
the
airport,
will
hopefully
enable
people
to
do
that
and
eliminate
the
need
for
people
to
come
by
by
taxi.
L
Okay,
yes,
but
I
am
puzzled
and
I
don't
think
it's
widely
known,
because
the
problem
is
that
we
have
more
taxes
than
enough
queuing
on
new
station
street
for
a
business
at
the
rail
station
because
they
have
nowhere
to
park
at
the
airport.
So
that
answer,
although
I'm
pleased
to
hear
it
surprises
me
greatly.
D
K
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
right,
a
couple
of
questions.
K
The
over
the
period
that
this
application
has
been
before
us
we've
had
we've
been
told
that
the
aircraft
that
will
use
this
aircraft
in
the
future
if
it
attracts
the
sort
of
trade
that
is
hoped
that
by
having
a
state-of-the-art
building
there
that
this
this
will
then
make
the
passenger
experience
that
much
better.
Therefore,
we
might
attract
the
classier
sort
of
airlines
and
that
with
them
will
come
aircraft
which
are
not
quite
as
noisy
as
the
ones
we've
got
now.
K
K
The
in
terms
of
access
to
the
airport,
road
access
people
are
getting
very,
very
exercised
about
the
road,
the
noise
of
traffic
and
things
like
that
on
the
access
to
the
airport.
You
know
you're
listening
to
somebody
who
lives
on
the
access
to
the
airport,
the
hurricane
road
through
warden-
and
you
know,
over
the
last
40
years,
I've
seen
that
road
go
from
quite
a
quiet
road
to
one
of
the
major
thoroughfares
of
the
greater
leeds,
but
it's
not
a
noisy
road.
K
It's
density
of
traffic,
which
is
the
problem,
not
noise
and
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
carbon
emissions,
you
know
we're
all
striving
towards
the
point
where
people
are
going
to
be
driving
electric
cars.
Now,
that's
not
going
to
be
that
long
after
this
sort
of
building
is
going
to
be
finished.
K
Is
that
something
that
we
should
be
taking
into
into
account?
Now
then?
Mr
reece
just
said
that
he
would
like
everybody,
no,
no,
a
great
deal
more
people
to
access
by
bus.
To
me,
this
is
a
is
sort
of
in
the
right
world
of
wishful
thinking.
K
People,
generally
speaking,
want
the
least
barriers
in
the
way
of
getting
anywhere
and
getting
into
your
own
car,
generally
speaking,
especially
when
you've
got
a
load
of
baggage
or
getting
into
a
taxi
is
by
far
the
easiest
way.
I
I
just
wonder:
can
anybody
tell
me
are:
is
leads
unique
in
not
having
enough
bus
access?
Does
manchester
do
better
proportionally
from
with
buses?
K
I
don't
know.
I
would
have
been
they're
very
interested
to
hear
that
the
somebody
said
a
few
minutes
ago
that
about
people's
attitude
towards
carbon,
carbon
reduction,
etc,
etc.
K
D
Yes,
thank
you
graeme,
just
unmoved
from
myself,
because
my
computer
keeps
bringing
in
extra
emails
and
making
a
sound.
Maybe
andrew
thicket
could
deal
with
the
highways
elements
and
the
noisy
road,
and
perhaps
somebody
could
suggest
an
officer
who
can
talk
about
aircraft
noises.
I
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
We
are
in
just
in
the
process
of
finishing
the
transport
assessment
of
the
of
the
airport
in
terms
of
vehicular
access
and
we've
asked
for
some
sensitivity
work
to
be
done,
but
mainly
because
the
change
in
flight
patterns,
as
they,
if
they
worked
out
perfectly,
would
actually
not
impact
very
greatly
on
the
peak
the
current
peak
hours
because
effectively
it
shifts
the
flights
earlier.
I
So
we've
just
expressed
a
deal,
an
amount
of
skepticism
that
that's
an
idealized
situation
and
we
wanted
a
bit
of
a
sensitivity
test,
doing
which
we've
we've
received
a
bit
of
yet
to
to
look
at
but
yeah.
We
are
aware
that
we
that
there
will
be
some
general
growth
in
traffic
over
the
day
and
we're
looking
for.
I
I
While
you
were
away
on
holiday
effectively,
which
we
think
is
a
positive
move
again
with
the
bus
use
it,
the
proposal
is
to
to
aim
for
a
10
percent
use
of
by
passengers
of
buses
and
employee
use
to
be
well
30
of
employees
not
to
be
traveling
by
private
car
and
in
the
airport
of
I've,
put
forward
some
suggestions
that
we
need
to
beef
up
effectively
into
a
section,
106
type
commitment
really
to
to
ensure
that
those
are
satisfactory.
I
D
Thank
you,
andrew
david
caroline,
somebody
on
aircraft
noise
for
council
artists,
question.
C
O
Good
afternoon
yeah,
I
think
the
question
was
about
the
confidence
in
quieter
aircraft
being
attracted
to
the
airport,
effectively
the
the
conditions
are
proposed
or
that
we
could
introduce
around
the
night
time.
Noise
contours
and
the
quote
accounts
essentially
mean
that
the
airport
would
have
to
either
attract
the
quieter
aircraft
or
reduce
the
number
of
aircraft
flying
in
order
to
meet
those
conditions
that
are
proposed.
K
O
So
which,
which,
which
part
would
so
I
thought
I'd
answer
the
question
I
missed
part
of
the
question.
K
K
O
The
noise
level
that
we
are
experiencing
now,
my
understanding
from
the
evidence,
is
that
potentially
there
could
be
a
slight
increase
in
noise
levels
than
what
we
are
experiencing
now,
certainly
in
the
short
term,
until
more
quieter
aircraft
are
accessible
in
the
market.
D
From
me
chair,
thank
you.
Sharon
moving
on
councillor
al
garthwaite,
please.
H
D
Sorry,
I've
muted
myself,
you
may
as
well
do
it
all
together.
H
Okay,
so,
given
the
application
is
designed
to
meet
the
demand
for
air
travel
and
will
increase
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
would
approval
be
contrary
to
paragraph
103
of
the
national
planning
policy
framework,
because
that
that
says
that
the
planning
system
should
actively
manage
growth
through
limiting
the
need
to
travel?
H
So
that's
my
first
question.
Then
I've
got
a
question
about
the
airport
parkway
station
and
the
employment
hub
spur
the
scale
of
contribution
from
leeds
bradford
airport.
How
much
would
that
be
to
to
fund
those
things
and
whether
the
business
case
for
the
for
the
airport
parkway
station
relies
on
the
expansion
of
the
airport
and
another
question
regarding
that?
Would
the
employment
hub
spur
road
need
to
connect
through
white
house
lane
if
it
wasn't
part
of
a
link
to
the
airport
and
the
parkway
station.
H
And
then,
moving
on
to
noise,
the
applicant
admits
that
it
will
lead
to
an
increase
in
noise
and
if
the
night
time
extension
is
allowed
to
an
increase
in
noise
in
night
time,
which
we
get
a
great
many
complaints
about.
In
my
ward
and
in
other
words,.
H
Sorry,
the
cat
keeps
pushing
my
tablet
over
the,
so
I
can't
see
again
how
this
increase
in
noise
at
night
time
is
consistent
with
the
aviation
policy
framework,
which
does
require
the
aviation
industry
to
take
steps
to
minimize
the
demand
for
night
flights
and
to
minimize
noise
impact
and
the
noise
nuisance,
and
indeed,
I'd
refer
to
the
noise
policy
statement
for
england,
which
expects
adverse
effects
on
health
and
quality
of
life
to
be
minimized,
and
also
the
leeds
best
city
strategy
which
identifies
the
need
to
reduce
pollution
and
noise
in
the
city.
H
So
it
seems
to
me
contradictory
to
say
we're
going
to
increase
noise
and,
at
some
point
in
the
future,
the
air
of
trends
might
get
quieter,
but
it's
sort
of
capped,
but
not
really,
it
seems
to
be
so.
Could
you
then
confirm
the
prediction
that
the
number
of
flights
between
six
and
and
seven
would
increase?
Even
if
the
development
doesn't
go
ahead,
and
is
this
based
on
the
use
of
aircraft
which,
under
planning
current
planning
conditions,
they
may
not
be
permitted
to
use
and.
H
I
do
think
regarding
health
if,
given
that
the
restrictions
were
put
in
in
1994,
as
I
understand
it
and
now
a
great
deal
more
is
known
about
the
adverse
effects
of
noise
than
was
known.
Then
how
can
it
be
thought
that
it's
okay
to
extend
it
now,
whereas
it
wasn't
okay,
then,
and
also
the.
H
D
J
Thank
you,
chair,
there's,
quite
a
lot
of
questions
there.
So
it's
difficult
to
know
in
which
order
to
to
to
answer
them.
I've
written
some
brief
notes
and
correct
me
if
I've,
if,
if
I've,
missed
some
of
the
questions
but
the
accumulation
to
the
mppf,
I
think
we've
already
had
questions
about
the
scheme
in
in
relation
to
the
mppf,
which
we
said,
we
would
take
some
some
legal
advice
on
and
come
back
to
you
with
a
with
another
paper
regarding
the
impact
on
the
on
the
actual
mppf.
J
Okay,
yeah
as
part
of
the
surface
access
strategy
that
we're
dealing
with
and
we're
negotiating
with
the
airport
on
is
that
they
are
looking
to
add
some
money
towards
the
airport
station
and
they're
looking
to
supplement
public
transport
to
the
station
in
firm
in
terms
of
additional
buses
and
whatever
we
haven't
got
pacific
financial
figures
regarding
that.
J
Yet
what
we're
looking
at
at
the
moment
is
trying
to
work
out
the
modal
splits
so
trying
to
work
out
the
percentage
of
people
that
will
move
from
the
car
to
the
buses
and
will
move
from
the
car
to
the
railway
station
and
then,
when
we
know
what
percentage
of
those
are.
We
can
then
equate
that
to
a
financial
sum
which
we
can
put
into
the
section
106
agreement,
so
it's
still
being
negotiated
with
them
at
the
moment,
but
the
airport
are
looking
to
make
a
contribution
to
the
station.
J
D
J
I
Yeah,
thank
you,
chad.
I
have
actually
asked
for
clarification
from
why
kevan,
because
it's
wiki
that
are
driving
the
the
station.
I
think
that
it's
it's
more.
I
It's
not
that
the
airport
is
reliant
on
the
station
for
growth,
but
the
the
business
case
for
the
station
is
assuming
a
certain
amount
of
use
by
airport
passengers.
I
I
But
but
what
we
do
know
is
that
it
won't
be
passing
through
the
the
airport
operational
boundary,
so
it
approximately
it
will
follow
the
line
of
scotland
lane,
but
as
part
of
the
this
application
under
contribution,
if
you
like
that
the
airport
is
making
to
to
the
connection
to
the
station,
they
are
offering
land
for
a
link
to
to
effectively
create
the
link
between
the
new
road
to
the
employment
hub
and
the
new
terminal
so
which
will
allow
the
circulation
of
of
the
shuttle
bus
effectively.
H
I
Well,
the
the
employment
hub
is
to
the
to
the
opposite
side
of
white
house
lane
to
the
airport,
so
so
the
the
route
of
that
road
effectively
will
come
from
the
station
that
that
carroll
pointed
out
to
the
to
the
east
of
the
airport.
It'll
come
up
roughly
follow
the
line
of
scotland
lane
and
then
at
some
point,
it'll
be
a
mixture
of
following
white
house
lane
and
taking
junctions
off
into
the
employment
hub.
I
I
It's
very
difficult
to
explain
without
a
plan
to
point
to,
but
but
that's
that's
the
principle
of
it.
H
Oh
okay,
I'll
I'll
go
back
to
it
and
look
at
that.
My
next
questions
were
about
noise
and,
given
that
it
will
relaxing
the
night,
flight's
controls
will
lead
to
an
increase
and
noise.
How
is
it
consistent
with
the
aviation
policy
framework
and
the
noise
policy
statement
for
england,
and
indeed
the
leads
best
city
strategy.
O
Yes,
chair
in
regards
to
the
aviation
policy
framework
minimizing
the
demand
for
flights,
I'm
afraid
I
can't
really
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
answer
how
that
would
how
this
would
meet
the
requirement
to
minimize
the
demand
for
flights,
but
in
terms
of
minimizing
the
impact
of
noise
nuisance,
the
application
is
proposing
to
introduce
mitigation
measures
through
noise
insulation
policies
and
and
other
flight
restrictions
in
order
to
minimize
the
impact.
H
O
Yes,
I
think
the
one
of
the
other
questions
I
think
you
raised
was
about
the
increase
in
flights
at
night
using
aircraft
that
are
not
allowed
at
the
moment.
O
So
obviously,
the
part
of
this
application
is
to
change
the
nighttime
conditions
controlling
aircraft
and
and
the
application
does
state
that
the
reason
it
wants
to
do
that
is,
in
the
short
term,
to
be
able
to
operate
some
aircraft
that
currently
are
not
allowed
to
do
so,
but
without
the
development.
The
argument
is
that
some
aircraft
would
be
exempt,
and
so
the
numbers
of
aircraft
could
still
increase,
but
that
isn't
necessarily
to
the
level
of
which
they
wish
the
airport
to
develop.
H
O
O
The
conditions
would
still
be
considered
fairly,
strict
compared
to
most
airports
and
and
the
increase
in
noise
levels
would
be
fairly
minimal
and
mitigated
or
could
be
mitigated
and-
and
that's
really
where
the
determination
needs
needs
to
decide
on
on
whether
the
levels
of
mitigation
are
adequate
for
the
proposed
increase.
D
Okay,
I'm
probably
the
only
member
here
today
that
was
involved
in
the
94
extension.
I
was
on
planning.
I
was
chair
of
planning
in
those
days,
so
I
remember
well
graeme
you
were
you
won.
I
I've
just
seen
you
nod.
D
But
I
know
I
remember
10
000
objections.
Yes,
I'm
not
sure
of
any
of
the
current
planning
offices
we're
involved
in
actually,
but
I
guess
the
short
answer
to
that
really
is
94.
We
have.
It
was
a
very
different
world
than
there
is
in
2020.
In
simply
simple
terms.
D
Okay,
a
lot
of
the
answers
you
didn't
fully
get
all
I'm
sure
when
the
final
reports
come
out,
they'll
be
fully
answered.
We'll
need
to
answer
that.
There's
a
lot
of
unknowns
at
the
moment
if
we
read
our
report
and
we're
waiting
for
quite
a
lot
of
reports
from
highways
and
several
other.
D
Good
questions
well
done:
okay,
moving
on
then
counselor
dan
cohen
dan.
Please
thank.
A
You
chair
and
I
have
to
say,
chair
26
years
ago,
you
said
you
were
chairing
plans.
Well,
I
didn't
think
it
was
allowed
at
10
years
old
to
do
such
things.
A
A
Are
they
at
risk
of
being
held
to
pre-determine
an
application
and
if
they
would
be
what
would
be
the
risk
to
them
of
that
question?
One
question
two:
what
would
be
the
economic
impact
on
the
city
city
that
is
looking
to
recover
from
the
impacts
of
covid
on
our
region's
economy?
A
What
would
be
the
economic
impact
of
not
proceeding
with
this
application?
What
would
the
costs
be
and
finally,
chair,
sorry,
somebody's
trying
to
come
through
to
me
and
finally
check?
How
do
we
take
into
account
we've?
Obviously,
we've
got
noise
impact
primarily,
but
obviously,
as
councillor
walsh
referred
to
carbon
impact,
how
do
we
take
into
account
the
impact
of
what
will
undoubtedly
over
the
next
10
20
30
years
and
beyond
the
quieter
cleaner
aircraft
coming
through
that?
We
don't?
A
You
know
we
have
technology
today
than
26
years
ago,
when
you
were
a
slip
overlap
we
would
never
have
dreamt
of
being
around.
The
same
is
absolutely
going
to
be
the
case
in
10
15
20
years
from
now
the
the
the
technology,
the
aeronautic
technology,
is
going
to
be
worlds
away.
Do
we
ignore
that
development?
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
dan.
I'm
very
kind
of
you
to
make
your
remarks
moving
on.
Can
I
ask
matt
plays
matt
hills
to
answer
the
first
legal
question.
P
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
councillor
cohen,
for
your
question.
There's
a
difference
between
being
predisposed
and
being
predetermined.
P
P
So,
ultimately,
it's
it's
a
matter
for
that
member
really
as
to
as
to
whether
they
feel
they're
able
to
do
that.
I
hope
that
helps.
D
That
was,
am
I
muted,
I'm
not
sure.
Oh
sorry,
that
was
very
clear
matt.
Thank
you.
Moving
on
to
david,
perhaps
the
other
two
questions,
and
perhaps
you
can
predict
the
future
in
20
30.
C
I
wish
I
could
chair,
I
think,
on
the
economic
point,
I
think
eve
would
be
able
to
comment
on
that
that
part
first
of
all
chair.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah
good
afternoon,
cheering
everybody
so
just
addressing
councillor
cohen's
points.
The
sort
of
economic
assessment
that
was
submitted
is
more
of
a
forward
kind
of
potential
forecast
of
what
jobs
might
be
created
rather
than
what,
if
we
don't
proceed
and
that
forecast
does
set
out
almost
12
000
jobs.
J
B
Forecast
that
was
made
was
actually
potentially
conservative
in
terms
of
the
impact
of
the
airport,
so.
B
Assessment
at
the
moment-
and
I
would
say
that
you
know
the
the
importance.
J
Of
having
a
kind
of
an
airport
that
can
operate
effectively
in
terms
of
not
just
our
economy
in
leeds,
but
the
regional.
C
Just
on
that
point
here
I
mean,
I
think,
council
cohen,
raises
a
valid
point,
that
you
know
technical
technological
change
moves
at
a
pace,
doesn't
it
in
terms
of
yeah,
new
infrastructure
and
new
types
of
mobility,
etc,
and
you
know
we're
in
a
very
different
world
from
from
the
one
in
the
early
1990s
that
you
described
before.
C
That
council
wall
shaw
mentioned
at
the
top
of
the
meeting,
that
that
is
a
huge
challenge,
but
I
think
equally,
it's
been
accepted
that
there
will
need
to
be
a
transition
to
that
target,
but
we
need
to
be
moving
as
quickly
as
we
realistically
can
share.
Thank
you.
D
D
G
Not
a
problem
yeah,
I
can
do
this
so
first.
Thank
you
to
david
feeny
for
for
promising
that
we'd
get
a
bit
more
work
on
how
this
application
may
fit
into
different
legal
frameworks.
We've
got
around
in
response,
I
think
to
council
of
walters
points
at
first.
G
The
other
point
I
just
wanted
to
raise
on
that
and
whether
I
could
get
either
some
of
some
part
of
an
answer
now
and
then
a
further
answer
later
at
west
yorkshire,
there
is
work
going
on
around
setting
targets
and
pathways
to
decarbonization
of
transport,
which
many
members
of
leeds
are
obviously
involved
with.
G
The
reports
that
are
coming
through
so
far
haven't
come
up
with
policy
arrangements,
but
have
come
up
with
recommendations
which
do
cover
regional
airports,
for
instance
within
the
report,
the
pathways
that
have
been
suggested
to
meet
their
2038
goal
at
west
yorkshire
include
domestic
aviation,
reducing
by
20
and
international
aviation,
static
or
limited
to
a
25
increase.
G
Given
that
we
are
a
constituent
council
of
the
west
yorkshire
combined
authority
should
should
we,
as
members
be
taking
account
of
that
work,
that's
emerging
as
part
of
this
and
I'll
I'll.
Leave
that
as
the
first
question
then
I'll
do
some
other
details
on
the
report
to
come
back.
D
C
I'm
happy
to
start
chair,
I
don't
know
for
the
colleagues
would
like
to
come
in,
but
I
think
that's
a
helpful
observation.
Councillor
cahill,
I
think
we
we
are
increasingly
working.
Aren't
we
within
that
sub-regional
context
and
we
are
working
on
a
number
of
fronts
on
the
sort
of
low-carbon
agenda
through
through
those
networks
and
and
connections.
So
I
certainly
think
it's
valid
to
look
at
that.
C
I
think
we
need
to
understand
what
stage
the
work
has
got
to
and
what
the
level
and
nature
of
the
interventions
are,
but
certainly
happy
to
take
that
away
and
have
a
look
at
it.
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
in
this
whole
area
in
terms
of
airport
growth
and
infrastructure
is
the
relationship
of
different
airports
across
different
geographies,
and
I
think
the
way
policy
is
set
up.
C
It
sort
of
looks
at
flight
sort
of
nationally
and
internationally,
but
within
in
the
national
perspective,
it's
sort
of
the
south
east
and
the
rest
of
the
country.
So
anything
we
can
do
that's
trying
to
coordinate
activity
and
and
manage
things
in
a
better
way
will
that
that
would
be
significantly
useful.
So
we
can
take
that
away
and
have
a
look
at
that
chair.
If
that
would
be
helpful,
that
would.
G
Thank
you
just
to
add
to
that.
I
think
very
useful
to
look
at
that
work,
but
I'd
like
to
see
also
as
a
member,
that's
involved
in
that
work
at
west
yorkshire,
but
on
behalf
of
leeds
how
much
legal
basis
I
should
take
how
much
material
consideration
I
should
make
on
that
work
when
I'm
making
a
decision,
given
that
the
the
recommendations
that
seem
to
be
coming
through
there
do
bear
quite
a
stark
resonance
to
the
application
we're
looking
at.
G
G
G
G
G
These
will
be
a
modest
increase
in
today's
emissions.
The
reduction
in
emissions
in
all
other
sectors
mean
that
the
airport
will
be
quite
a
major
emitter
by
the
time
we
get
to
that
2030
level.
I
just
wondered
whether
that
was
taken
into
account
if
I
could
have
a
quick
comment
from
the
planning
officer.
Maybe
on
that.
D
J
I
think
what
we're
saying
at
the
moment
is
is
is
that
there
will
be
a
0.4
percent
increase
as
part
of
this
planning
application,
but
what
the
airport
and
the
applicants
are
doing
in
the
background
at
the
moment
is
they're
looking
into
this
further
and
they're,
seeing
if
they
can
bring
this
0.4
down
they're
they're,
hoping
that
if
they
can
get
it
to
a
level
where
it
it
ends
up
as
stable,
so
that
and
they're
looking
to
do
that
by
a
surface
access
strategy
which
that
they're
working
on
at
the
moment.
J
G
That
helpful,
peter
okay,
yeah
I'll
I'll,
accept
that
as
an
answer,
I
think,
obviously,
by
the
time
we
get
to
2030,
it
may
not
be
two
percent
of
the
emissions
in
the
city,
because
we
may
find
that
the
overall
emissions
of
the
city
have
reduced
considerably
and
therefore,
by
that
point
the
decisions
we
would
make
of
2030
may
be
slightly
different.
Given
that
we'd
be
in
a
different
position
and
going
on
then
to
my
wider
question,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
the,
and
this
will
be.
G
I've
only
got
a
couple
a
couple
more
now
chair
the
clawback
question.
I
think
we've
got
here
because
this
argument's
been
around-
and
I
know
officers
have
tried
to
clarify
and
and
to
come
up
with
quantification
for
does
increased
flights
at
leeds,
allow
passengers
who
are
currently
traveling
elsewhere
to
fly
to
fly
more
locally,
thus
reducing
those
emissions.
G
I
was
just
very
confused
by
that
17
figure
and
how
it
was
worked
out.
I
think
if
we
look
at
the
cumulative
impact
of
the
overall
emissions
for
the
airport,
so
I'm
including
scope,
one
two
and
three-
we
see
400
000
tons
of
cumulative
impact
of
co2
emissions
and,
by
my
reckoning,
that
doing
my
amateur
sums
is
22
million
card
journeys
to
manchester.
That
would
have
to
take
place
in
order
to
equate
those.
So
an
explanation
of
that
17.
But
also
can
I
just
ask
for
this
clarification?
G
So
I'm
just
a
bit
confused
by
how
that
quantification
works,
and
I
I
can't
really
see
a
reduction
in
flights
in
other
airports
being
caused
by
people
going
from
one
to
the
other
and
just
to
count
my
I
mean
my
22
million
people
driving
to
manchester
takes
account
they're
all
using
private
cars
rather
than
anyone
getting
on
the
train
or
using
more
sustainable
transport.
So
I'd
just
like
to
go
into
that
detail
a
bit
more.
If
I
can't
yeah.
D
I
think
that's
a
fair
question.
I
I,
I
think,
we've
all
puzzled
on
that.
One,
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
deal
with
it.
O
O
The
information
there
was
a
separate
technical
note
presented
by
the
applicant,
which
presented
information
from
the
civil
aviation
authority,
which
suggested
that
there
was,
I
think
it
was
about
two
and
a
half
million
journeys
in
2018
from
passengers
who
were
traveling
to
manchester
airport,
that
lived
closer
to
lee's
bradford
airport
and
the
calculations
were
looked
at
and
estimated
that
approximately
32
000
tons
per
year
of
carbon
would
be
saved
if
those
journeys
all
diverted
to
lee's
bradford
airport.
O
So
the
17
figure
is
17.
Of
that
32
000
tons
would
equal
the
predicted
increase
through
due
to
increased
passenger
numbers
at
least
bradford
airport,
and
yes,
it
is
only
include
it
is
only
assessing
surface
access
emissions,
not
including
aircraft
emissions,
as
as
was
discussed
at
the
beginning.
Q
Thank
you
chair.
I'm
very
conscious
and
I've
been
very
conscious
listening
to
a
lot
of
the
questions
that
many
of
them
are
very
technical
questions
which
have
very
good
technical
answers.
I
may
mr
chair
I'd
like
to
involve
tim
waring
who's
on
the
call
who's
our
from
quad
who's,
our
technical
advisor,
who,
I
think,
will
be
able
to
give
give
members
much
much
fuller
answers
than
perhaps
I'm
able
to
give.
So,
with
your
permission,
mr
chair,
I
I'd
like
to
call
on
tim.
Yes,
welcome.
R
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
all
in
terms
of
the
clawback
element
and
what
that
means
for
carbon.
R
What
that
work
demonstrates-
and
I
don't
want
to
go
into
the
detail
of
it
here-
because
it's
probably
not
appropriate,
given
it's
not
before
yourselves,
but
very
simply
what
it
demonstrates
is
that
there
will
be
an
increase
in
carbon
impact
from
the
surface
access
strategy.
If
no
mitigation
takes
place.
R
What
we
are
proposing
through
the
the
surface
access
strategy
is
a
number
of
mitigation
measures
that
will
actually
reduce
that
carbon
impact
and
that
carbon
impact
will
be
primarily
reduced
by
improving
access
to
the
airport
by
public
transport.
R
It
also
assumes
that
the
train
station
will
come
online
as
well
at
some
point
in
the
in
the
in
the
next
five
years,
which
is
a
commitment
from
weica.
R
It
also
addresses
ev
charging
and
the
improvements
for,
and
hydrogen
charging,
as
well,
perhaps
for
buses
and
for
taxes
and
with
those
mitigations
and
the
natural
improvement
going
back
to
council
lati's
point
a
natural
improvement
with
vehicle
efficiencies
and
movement
towards
the
electric
vehicles
that
is
going
to
happen
throughout
the
nation
as
well
as
the
world.
R
We
get
to
a
carbon
position
that
is
exactly
the
same
or
near
enough
damage
the
same
as
we
have
at
the
moment
that
doesn't
take
account
of
the
clawback
of
trade
or
passengers
from
other
airports,
and
we've
done
a
further
piece
of
work
which
mr
crowder
refers
to,
which
demonstrates
that,
actually,
if
you
claw
back
trade
and
bring
back
passengers
who
are
currently
traveling
more
to
more
distant
airports,
and
it's
not
just
manchester
but
it's
east
midlands,
it's
newcastle
and
it's
even
london
people
get
in
their
cars
to
drive
to
london.
R
If
you
do
that,
then
actually,
you
can
reduce
the
carbon
effects
of
the
surface
access
strategy
even
further.
But
what
we're
saying
is
that,
even
if
you
take
account,
don't
take
account
of
that
clawback.
R
D
C
That's
fine
chair.
We
can
pick
up
on
all
of
the
matters
that
have
been
raised
this
afternoon
chair
and
look
at
everything
in
the
round
I
mean
we
do
need
to
pull
together
a
you
know,
comprehensive
and
thorough
report
which
takes
on
board
all
of
the
information
chair.
So
I
think
this
has
been
a
very
useful
session
in
flushing
out
these
issues.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
G
Conclude
well
one
more
based
on
that
and
the
others,
because
I
think
it's
very
clear
that
then
well
one
small
question
on
that
fact.
Then,
regarding
the
clawback,
are
we
going
to
be
seeing
an
increase
in
domestic
flights
at
leeds
bradford
airport?
G
Due
to
this,
because
I
think
there's
a
very
good
argument
there
that
flights
that
cannot
be
taken
out
of
leeds
bradford
at
the
moment,
for
instance,
to
extremely
exotic
destinations
of
the
likes
that
I
could
only
dream
of
visiting
many
of
those
only
exit
from
the
large
airports
in
the
southeast
london
area.
G
Are
there
going
to
be
an
increase
in
domestic
flights
from
the
airport?
In
which
case
are
we
taking
that
reverse
claw
back
into
a
consideration
of
people
who
may
be
flying
to
london
in
order
to
get
a
flight
to
an
exotic
destination,
rather
than
taking
the
train
to
london,
which
would
be
a
much
more
sustainable
method?
And
then
sorry,
I've
got
one
more
to
come
back
to.
I
apologize.
D
Okay,
mr
reese
and
mr
waring,
please
perhaps
you
could
deal
with
that
on
the
balance
of
domestic
flights
and
international
flights.
Q
We
should
ideally
I'll
pass
I'll
deal
with
the
the
the
exotic
destination
question
and
then,
let's
hand
over
hand
over
to
tim.
Q
Well,
firstly,
I
think
it's
important
to
realize
that
a
lot
of
our
longer
distance
destinations
are
the
ones
most
heavily
used
by
business
traffic.
So
a
lot
of
the
long
distance
traffic
that
currently
goes
out
on
the
klm
flight
via
amsterdam
hubs
out
of
amsterdam,
yeah
direction
and
business
people.
I
know
find
that
very
valuable,
especially
if
they're
doing
business
in
the
middle
east
or
the
far
east,
or
indeed
in
the
united
states.
Q
As
far
as
domestic
is
concerned,
I
honestly
lba,
if
lba
doesn't
have
a
flight,
we
currently
don't
have
a
flight
to
london.
In
fact,
the
only
flights
I
think
it
will
be
sensible
for
lba
to
operate
in
the
future
will
be
the
longer
distance
flights
for
point-to-point
that
people
can't
do
sensibly
or
if
people
are
hubbing,
obviously
through
heathrow.
If
people
are
having
and
going
to
the
states
for
example,
then
it
does
make
sense
for
there
to
be
some
connectivity
to
heathrow
to
link
up
for
those
u.s
flights.
Q
A
lot
of
people
at
the
moment
are
flying
to
amsterdam
to
catch
flights
to
the
united
states.
I
would
like
to
see
that
transfer
traffic,
preferably
going
through
his
heathrow
to
help
give
people
that
option
that
choice
and
because
at
the
moment
they
only
have
one
choice.
That
is
amsterdam,
but
if
I
may
take
a
a
good
good
example
of
a
destination
that
is
served
currently
by
lba,
that
can't
sensibly
be
served
by
rail
and
that's
new
key.
Q
It's
a
very
successful
route
that
we
have
out
of
lba
at
the
moment
by
surface
transport,
whether
it's
rail
or
road.
It
takes
about
a
day
to
travel
to
new
in
the
day
to
travel
back,
so
any
business
person
wanting
to
do
business
in
cornwall
has
to,
and
basically
it's
a
three-day
trip
in
order
to
do
a
site
visit
to
that
part
of
cornwall.
I
would
hope
everybody
would
agree
that
a
fast,
efficient
domestic
and
frequent
domestic
service
to
ut
is
a
very
good
idea.
Q
R
Tim,
thank
you,
hal,
I'm
afraid
I
can't
really
answer
the
the
technicalities
of
it
other
than
to
say
that,
as
part
of
the
assessment
that
we've
undertaken,
we
do
recognize
that
we
will
have
to
take
account
of
any
potential
impacts
from
domestic
flights,
and
that
has
been
taken
into
account
as
part
of
the
the
claw
back
or
it.
It
is
in
the
the
work
that
we've
undertaken.
R
So
I
think
the
difficulty
that
we
we
have
is
that
the
clawback
of
of
of
passengers
is
is
difficult
to
quantify
with
with
you
know,
a
great
level
of
certainty,
but
it
there
is
a
kind
of
a
range
of
scenarios
that
we
can
and
have
presented
to
to
officers
that
demonstrate
what
that
that
clawback
could
mean.
But
I
completely
agree
with
mr
calhoun
that
we
do
need
to
take
account
of
any
any
counter
or
checks
and
balances
that
might
arise
because
of
the
the
impact
of
more
domestic
flights.
D
G
Just
then,
then,
one
further,
because,
obviously
it's
very
clear.
So
thank
you
for
those
answers.
I
do
appreciate
that
many
of
these
are
technical
matters,
but
I
think
all
of
those
technical
matters
are
ones
that
that
members
will
be
seeking
answers
to
before
they
make
a
decision
on
this
in
order
to
make
a
balanced
decision,
as
we
all
will
be
seeking
to
make.
G
Just
on
the
report
around
10.23
and
10.24,
it's
been
clear
in
all
those
answers
that
whenever
we
are
looking
at
the
carbon
emissions
from
the
airport,
we're
looking
at
this
surface,
carbon
emissions
and
scope,
1
scope,
2..
G
Obviously
there
are
points
to
members
here,
and
I've
asked
for
legal
questions
before
whether
members
should
be
regarding
the
impact
of
international
flights
as
a
planning
consideration
in
this
and
it's
question
in
the
report,
whether
we
should
be
asking
whether
that
affects
the
ability
for
the
uk
to
meet
the
paris
agreement
and
such
that
question
seems
to
still
be
with
members
to
make
that
decision
and
members
seem
to
be
required
by
this
to
weigh
up
those
options.
G
Therefore,
I'm
a
bit
concerned
that
all
of
the
figures
I
have
here
are
regarding
the
surface
access
to
the
airport
and
the
climate
emission
and
the
carbon
emissions
on
ground
level,
whereas
members
may
decide
that
they
want
to
factor
in
some
of
those
other
those
other
emissions.
As
part
of
this,
and-
and
I
think
the
report
doesn't
really
give
us
the
opportunity
to
seek
whether
those
emissions
will
affect
some
of
those
national
strategies.
G
It
would
be
very
useful
to
have
some
documentation
from
course
here
saying
that
they
feel
that
expansions
such
as
this
do
fit
in
with
the
plan
that
they
are
undertaking
to
mitigate
impacts,
because
otherwise,
I'm
afraid
we're
just
saying.
There's
a
group
there
doing
something
that,
unfortunately,
I
haven't
seen
the
detail
of
what
they're
doing
or
whether
they
hope
to
achieve
it.
G
And
I
wonder
whether
that's
something
that
the
chief
planning
officer
would
be
able
to
comment
on
whether
that
further
detail
would
be
there
to
allow
members
really
to
look
at
this
in
the
round.
D
C
Sorry,
I
was
just
just
on
moot.
I
I
think
matt
was
going
to
come
back
in
on
the
on
on
the
the
legal
point,
so
so
I'll
just
move
into
to
the
second
point.
Yes,
we
need
to
understand.
Don't
we
the
role
of
course
here
and
where
that
sits
in
terms
of
the
detail
of
the
responsibility
and
how
we
move
that
on
so
again,
that's
something
we
can
take
away
and
have
a
have
a
look
at
in
a
bit
more
detail.
Chair.
D
P
P
Yes,
thank
you.
Thanks
for
the
question
counselor,
it's
it's
a
bit
of
a
tricky
one,
because
the
climate
change
act.
2008
is
the
act
that
specifically
defines
the
the
country's
zero
net
zero
carbon
goal,
but
the
act
itself
is
only
actually
binding
on
the
secretary
of
state.
P
So
so
this
planning
decision,
much
like
all
planning
decisions,
has
to
be
determined
within
the
the
normal
scheme
and
framework
of
so
doing
in
accordance
with
the
development
plan
and
less
material.
Consistent
considerations
indicate
otherwise.
P
So
although
this
council
is
not
bound
specifically
by
that
target
in
that
act,
I
also
can't
say
that
it's
immaterial
so
and
of
course,
that
there
are
other
local
mechanisms
as
well
such
as
the
climate
change
emergency,
by
which
this
would
fall
to
be
considered
as
a
material
consideration.
P
So
I
hope
that
clears
it
up
slightly
in
relation
to
the
the
targets
that
are
in
the
statutes,
because
it
it
is
a
little
complicated,
but
hopefully
that
explains
it
somewhat.
At
least.
D
F
Thank
you
chair.
Can
I
just
say
that
mr
hill's
explanation
made
it
even
more
complex
and
opaque.
F
Can
I
I'm
supposed
to
ask
questions
in
in
two
areas?
One
thing
that
nobody's
actually
mentioned
is
the
technicalities
or
the
detail
of
the
the
building
itself
and
when
we
were
being
shown
the
slides
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions.
Number
one
is:
do
we
actually
think
they're
for
departing
passengers?
Do
we
actually
think
there
are
enough
seats?
F
I'm
looking
at
slide,
10
that
we
had
there
and
on
slide
15.
It
showed
a
nice
bush
shelter
and,
as
we
all
know,
the
weather
up
at
eden
is
consistently
balmy,
but
the
the
shelter
itself
appeared
to
be
not
fit
for
purpose,
I'm
assuming
that
we'll
be
fitting
more
appropriate
shelters
more
than
rather
than
visually
pleasing.
F
F
We
can't
get
our
head
around
what
appear
to
be
technical
answers
given
by
people
with
technical
expertise
and
it's
very
difficult
for
lay
people
to
get
their
head
around
that.
So
when
we
talk
about
there
being
a
minimal
increase
or
the
pollution
will
get,
wor
will
be
negligibly
worse.
F
F
I'm
assuming,
therefore,
the
the
airport's
pet
taxi
company
would
be
disappearing,
but
I
draw
your
attention
to
1011
and
have
offices
agreed
10
11
on
page
49,
which
is
the
removal
of
the
one
hour
free,
pickup
and
drop
off,
which
seems
to
me
to
be
detrimental
because
it
will
push
vehicles
onto
the
surrounding
road
network.
D
J
Yeah
start
and
I'll
start
and
answer
what
I
can
answer
and
then
move
on
to
other
offices.
If
they
can
help
in
terms
of
the
seating,
I
I
don't
have
an
answer
as
to
how
many
seats
are
proposed,
but
what
I
can
do
is
find
that
answer
out
from
the
airport,
and
we
can
do
it.
J
We
can
perhaps
get
some
information
as
to
how
many
people
they
would
expect
to
be
in
the
departure
lounge
for
a
typical
hour
before
we
come
back
to
pan's
panel
again,
to
give
you
an
idea
of
how
many
people
will
be
there
for
an
hour
and
how
many
seats
are
available
within
that
hour
in
terms
of
the
bus
shelters,
that
image
was
just
a
cgi
to
give
you
an
impression
of
what
the
shelter
potentially
would
look
like
at
the
moment.
J
Officers
are
negotiating
with
them,
and
it's
likely
that
we
will
put
conditions
on
as
to
what
the
bus
shelters
will
ultimately
look
like
to
make
sure
that
they
are
protective
for
the
people
who
will
will
use
them
in
terms
of
the
only
other
one.
I
can
answer
from
the
questions
that
you've
given
is
in
relation
to
the
free
car
parking
officers
haven't
agreed
to
the
proposal
for
the
free
car
parking
at
the
moment.
J
The
airport
have
put
this
forward
and
in
the
re
that
report
under
10.11
I've,
given
you
the
airport's
reasons
as
to
why
they
consider
that
free
one,
our
car
parking
should
be
removed.
I
think
one
thing
you
have
to
remember
about
it.
The
cars
going
out
onto
the
highway
is
that
when
the
free
car
park
was
put
in
a
few
years
ago,
people
could
park
on
the
highway
and
they
could
park
round
the
airport,
and
it
was
seen
as
being
a
a
highway
safety
issue.
J
We
now
have
the
red
zone,
which
does
stop
people
parking
on
the
streets
around
the
airport,
so
the
car
parking
may
not
be
needed
on
a
safety
issue
as
much
as
it
did
do
when
you
dealt
with
this
a
few
years
ago,
but
I
think
it's
up
to
members
ultimately
to
decide
whether
they
are
happy
with
the
airport's
proposal,
but
the
the
removal
of
the
free
car
part
for
the
reasons
that
they've
given
in
that
report.
Those
are
the
only
ones
that
I
can
answer
out
of
that.
J
I
Andy
microphone
in
the
right
place,
yeah
just
to
add
to
carol's
point.
I
think
as
well
on
the
red
drill
that,
if,
if
we
were
going
to
lose
the
the
one
hour
three
car
park,
we'd
look
to
extend
the
red
route
round
to
scotland
learning.
What
have
you,
because
the
the
likelihood
is
that
there'll
be
a
pedestrian
route
from
scotland
laying
up
up
to
the
terminal
so
but
but
yeah.
I
Clearly,
it's
that
fundamental
question
of
of
whether
members
view
on
supporting
the
removal
of
it
in
terms
of
the
railway
station.
What
what
what
the
airports
stated
right
from
the
outset
is
that
they
want
to
expand
to
seven
million
without
increasing
car
parking,
but
that
they
reserve
the
right
to
increase
it
by
about
700
spaces
if
necessary,
in
order
to
not
at
the
moment,
they've
got
about
seven
just
over
seven
thousand
spaces
and
there's
probably
about
generally
a
couple
of
thousands
spare.
I
So
they've
got
some
room
to
expand
within
the
existing
car
park
in
terms
of
the
amount
of
car
parking
that
occurs,
but
in
order
to
control
the
level
of
car
parking
cars
that
arrive
and
hence
car
parking,
that's
required.
I
They
do
need
to
have
a
merch
shift
away
from
to
public
transport
use,
but
for
both
passengers
and
employees.
So
the
the
the
the
airport
does.
It's
sorry.
The
station
does
feature
in
that
assumption.
In
safaris
the
the
the
currently
assumed
that
without
the
station
they
could
achieve
a
10
percent
shift
from
from
to
public
transport
and
that
with
the
station
they
could
achieve
a
15
shift.
I
We're
still
working
through
the
final
figures
that
have
been
submitted
to
effectively
identify.
If
that
failure
in
public
transport
shift
did
if
there
was
a
failure
in
it.
What
what
that
would
mean
in
terms
of
car
parking
and
additional
traffic
on
the
road?
I
So
so
so,
yes,
the
the
the
the
the
station
is
featuring
in
in
the
in
the
round,
but
but
this
is
based
on
the
assessment
at
2030
and
the
delivery
of
the
station.
All
being
well
will
do
well
in
advance
of
that,
and
and
so
for
instance,
there
is
also
a
2024
assessment
which
suggests
that
the
they
can
manage
with
less
of
a
shift
to
public
transport.
I
They
currently
have
about
five
percent
by
bus
and
the
if,
if
they
get
seven
and
a
half
percent
by
bus
in
2024,
they
can
accommodate
that
within
the
existing
car
parking
with
with
some
spare.
So
so
it's
it's
more
looking
to
that
long-term
20,
30,
7
million
passengers
is,
is
the
need
for
the
station.
F
Well,
a
couple
of
points
I
think
carol's
slightly
inaccurate.
When
we
talk
about
the
red
zone,
stopping
people
doing
it
part
of
the
rationale
for
installing
the
red
zone
and
part
of
the
rationale
for
agreeing
to
the
red
zone
was
that
there
was
an
alternative
which
allowed
you
to
drop
people
off
without
incurring
the
charge,
and
so
what
we
appear
to
be
saying
here
is
we
well.
We
would
use
traffic
regulation
orders
to
to
push
people
into
pay
parking
which
I'm
not
sure
about.
Can
I
just
ask
a
couple
of
questions.
F
If
we're
talking
about
numbers
of
people
using
public
transport
and
and
prior
to
this
application,
there
have
been
several
where
the
airport
have
indicated
a
willingness
to
go
for
a
larger
proportion
by
public
transport,
but
they
never
seem
to
have
hit.
That
figure.
Could
we
actually
put
a
condition
on
that
say
in
2030?
F
Currently,
there
are
no
restrictions
on
the
daytime
use.
We
would
put
in
a
new
daytime
use.
Could
we,
as
an
authority,
put
a
different
set
of
quoted
conditions
on,
say
the
six
still
seven
slot,
so
if
we
wished
to,
could
we
have
a
quota
of
that
only
allowed
say
those
with
a
quota
count
of
0.25
to
land
and
take
off
during
that
hour?
D
Jeff
good
questions
who
wants
to
answer
it
I
haven't
heard
from
jonathan
or
dalget:
do
you
want
to
start
this
off
and
then
maybe
we'll
move
to
richard
crowler
john.
F
You
know,
I
think
these
are
rather
technical
questions
in
terms
of
the
noise
court
account
which
richard
is
obviously
better
placed
to
respond
specifically
on
that
and
then
in
terms
of
the
the
passenger
numbers.
Perhaps
andrew
can
advise
us
as
to
whether
we've
actually
conditioned
a
specific
percentage
to
be
forced
down
a
modal
shift
in
previous
applications.
I'm
not
sure
whether
it
would
be
a
enforceable
condition,
but
andrew
might
be
able
to
advise
on
his
experience
of
other
developments.
I
Yeah,
that's
right!
Well,
the
the
current!
Well,
the
consent
on
the
current
terminal
requires,
if
you
like
the
airport,
to
pay
a
certain
contribution
towards
public
transport
on
the
base
until
it
hits
a
certain
percentage,
public
transport
use,
which
has
never
quite
worked
as
probably
as
well
as
it
should
have
done,
but
certainly
the
airport
does
pay
a
contribution
towards
the
the
running
of
the
public
buses
to
the
airport.
I
So
I
think
what
we've
got
to
very
carefully
do
is
structure
a
section
106
agreement
that
ties,
contribute
financial
contributions
to
performance
in
terms
of
percentage
use
by
public
transport,
and,
if
you
like,
the
failure
of
that
and
the
impact
that
that
would
bring
to
to
to
off-site
highway
infrastructure-
and
certainly
that's
that's
something
that
we
we
need
to
work
through.
Now.
D
O
So
yeah,
that's
that's
slightly
complicated
in
theory.
Yes,
a
condition
could
be
put
forward
to
limit
movements
or
aircraft
types
at
any
time
of
the
the
day
or
night.
O
I
think
the
practicalities
in
terms
of
the
the
figure
used
by
councillor
campbell
is
that
the
application
is
requesting
the
ability
to
depart
with
quote
count
one
during
the
night
until
2025,
so
the
actual
it
would
be
a
case
of
whether
the
airport
could
actually
achieve
that
condition
and
I'm
afraid,
I'm
not
really
in
a
position
to
say
how
you
would
then
go
about
choosing
whether
that
was
an
acceptable
condition
or
not.
F
I
I'm
sorry,
but
I
thought
we
were
the
ones
who
were
setting
the
conditions,
not
in
response
to
what
the
airport
would
necessarily
like.
So
if
we
believed,
if
we
as
a
panel,
believed
that
to
protect
the
amenity
of
residents,
we
would
want
a
if
if
it
was
agreed,
we
would
want
the
court
to
count.
I
you
I
pulled
0.25
out
of
the
air
because
it
just
happens
to
be
a
figure
that
has
been
thrown
back
at
me,
but
if
we
wish
to
put
that
type
of
condition
on
we
could
do.
B
There
are
clear
legal
tests
for
applied
planning
conditions.
It's
not
just
the
case
of
whether
they're
considered
necessary.
We
would
have
to
give
thought
to
whether
what
we're
proposing
was
reasonable,
proportionate
and
enforceable.
So
that
needs
to
be
looked
at
in
the
round
with
colleagues.
B
I
I
completely
understand
the
sentiment
of
councillor
campbell,
but
as
officers
we
would
need
to
ensure
that
we
were
taking
a
reasonable
position
and
that
those
conditions
were
enforceable
and
beyond
that
basis,
I
would
come
back
to
you
with
the
report.
D
Okay,
can
we
leave
you
there,
colin,
yes
chap?
Thank
you
councillor,
kaylee
brooks
please.
In
a
long
time
waiting.
I
know
kaylee.
D
B
Everyone's
doing
a
lovely
job
though,
and
yeah
I've
got,
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions,
though,
if
I
may
so
paragraph
10.16,
it's
the
the
table.
I've
got
some
some
questions
about
there.
B
So
is
this
table
based
on
current
or
projected
future
aviation
technology
is
my
first
question
and
also
how
does
this
table
sort
of
compare
to
other
airports,
operational
airports
at
the
moment
of
similar
size
in
terms
of
emissions,
and,
I
suppose
also
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
the
the
future
technologies
that
have
been
been
mentioned-
the
hydrogen
and
electric
and
all
that
stuff.
B
I'm
wondering
what
kind
of
time
frame
we're
looking
at
for
them
to
be
operational
within
domestic
flights
as
well,
so
yeah
I'll
leave
you
with
those
please.
Okay,.
O
Yeah
yeah
so
in
in
terms
of
the
in
terms
of
carbon
emissions,
I'm
afraid
I'm
not
I'm
not
really
able
to
explain
how
these
emissions
from
the
aircraft
are
based
on
existing
or
future
technology.
The
airport
might
be
able
to
give
more
clarification
on
that.
Obviously,
the
assessment
has
been
based
on
their
flight
modeling
and,
and
these
are
the
emissions
that
they're
predicting.
I
I've
no
specific
technical
knowledge
to
question
the
technology
assumed
and
how
that
would
affect
the
flight
emissions.
D
R
Thank
you,
council
mckenna.
I
think,
as
as
a
number
of
you
know
around
the
table,
I'm
I'm
a
mere
town
planner
and
not
a
a
climate
climate
change
specialist.
We
have
got
somebody
in
the
team
who
isn't
here
today,
but
we
can
certainly
answer
that
question
in
response.
R
In
terms
of
the
technological
advances
there
has
been
some
account
taken
in
the
eia
of
those
and
we
have
adopted,
as
you
are
required,
under
environmental
impact
assessment
regulations,
to
adopt
a
worst
case,
so
we
have
adopted
a
worst
case
based
on
reasonable
assumptions,
but
we
can
respond
specifically
on
that
technical
question
to
the
through
the
officers
for
the
next
time.
This
comes
before
you.
Q
Mr
chairman,
perhaps
I
could
add
a
little
bit
more
color
to
that.
If
I
may
still,
please,
the
the
and
for
council
brooks
the
the
modeling
is
based
on
aircraft
technology,
as
we
anticipated
will
improve
over
time
and
as
we
anticipate,
our
aircraft,
orders
will
come
on
stream.
So
as
time
goes
on,
so
it's
assumed
in
the
model
that
the
the
technological
level
of
the
aircraft
improves
with
time.
Q
B
Has
it
been
assumed
that
this
there's
a
sort
of
50
reduction
in
emissions,
as
you
know,
per
year,
or
something
like
that
and
and
is
that,
is
that
a
sustainable
basis
like
whole
fleets
that
have
to
be
replaced?
I
don't
know
like
yeah
I'd
like
a
bit
more
clarity
on
that
and
I'd
like
also
to
see
it
going
up
to
2050
because
that's
the
government's
own.
B
B
C
We
can
include
that
in
the
list
chair,
but
I
think
mr
waring
had
sort
of
made
reference
anyway
to
to
further
work,
so
perhaps
we
could
just
incorporate
it
into
that
that
piece.
Okay,
thank
you.
D
E
Blackburn
david,
the
culture,
it's
been
a
long
wait.
I
keep
crossing
questions
off.
I
have
first
of
all,
can
I
just
pick
up
on
on
the
question
that
keeley
just
asked
council
brooks
asked
because
I
don't
actually
think
we
got
a
correct
answer
there
because
he
says
about
the
anticipated
performance,
but
is
it
anticipated
performance
of
technology
we
know
about
or
is
it
what
we
expect
the
performance
to
be
from
the
technology
by
then.
D
No
nobody's
rushing
in
to
answer
that
one
for
you,
david.
Maybe
it's
something
that
we
can
include
on
the
report.
Mr
feeney.
E
If
we
find
out
about
that,
because
I
always
remember
back
in
1970s
when
we
had
the
oil
crisis
motor
vehicles
were
performance
were
going
to
be
so
great
well
as
a
result
of
the
oil
crash
in
the
70s
they
improved
dramatically.
But
when
all
prices
came
down,
they
didn't
improve
any
very
much
in
next
few
years.
So
I'm
just
wondering
is:
is
it?
Is
the
technology
there
to
do
it
and
that's
that?
That's
all
right
and
then
my
next
question.
E
It
says
in
the
report
that,
on
from
when
it
mentions
the
objections
about
stansted
and
bristol
airport
and
that
they've
had
expansion,
applications
turned
down
and
it
says
due
to
damage
on
climate.
What
I
want
to
know
is
is
if
they
can
bring
climate
change
into
it.
Why
is
the
problem
with
us
bringing
climate
change
into
it?.
P
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
I'll,
just
first
of
all,
councillor
blackburn,
I'm
not
saying
there's
a
problem
with
bringing
climate
change
into
it,
but
it's
important
to.
P
I
suppose
it's
important
to
look
at
it
as
it's
going
to
be
a
material
consideration
in
your
deliberations
when
this
application
comes
to
be
determined
so
to
say
that
we
can't
bring
it
in.
I
think
that's
that's
not
correct.
I
think
it
would.
You
know
it
would
be
a
material
consideration
that
you'd
have
to
consider
as
decision
makers
in
terms
of
bristol
and
stansted
these
two.
These
two
airports
are
at
the
appeals
stage.
P
Appeals
have
been
submitted
to
the
planning
inspectorate
by
both
respective
airport
owners
managers.
Unfortunately,
at
the
moment,
that's
all
we
know
the
airports
have
submitted
their
appeals.
We
don't
know
when
those
appeals
are
going
to
be
heard
and
we
don't
know
what
the
outcome
of
those
will
be.
Of
course,
it
may
well
be
that
whatever
the
planning
inspector
decides
that
those
appeal
decisions
get
appealed
onwards
as
it
were
up
to
the
planning
court
and
and
beyond,
so
it's
really
an
unknown
at
the
moment.
P
Unfortunately,
I
do
know
from
personal
experience
that
the
planning
inspector
are
dealing
with
quite
a
backlog
of
appeal
decisions
due
to
the
covet
19
situation
and
the
need
to
implement
virtual
inquiries
as
well.
So
there
is
quite
a
there's
quite
a
a
backlog
of
those
to
be
dealing
with,
so
it
may
well
be
that
actually,
these
two
airport
decisions
aren't
decided
in
time
to
assist
this
panel
when
it
comes
to
deliberate
at
least
bradford.
Unfortunately,.
E
So
what
you're
saying
exactly
is
is
that
that
was
a
decision
made
by
their
planning
committees
in
their
opinions.
So
if
we
were
to
do
the
same,
we
could
do
the
same
really.
P
What
I
can't
do
is
offer
you
any
sort
of
insight
at
all
as
to
how
such
a
decision
would
be
treated
by
the
planning
inspector
or
the
courts,
because
we
haven't
got
anything
concrete
at
that
stage,
so
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
say
well,
if
you
make
this
decision,
we
can
look
at
bristol
and
we
can
look
at
stansted,
and
this
is
what
was
ultimately
decided
in
that
situation,
because
it's
too
premature
to
do
so.
But
in
principle
this
panel
can
make
that
decision.
E
Yeah,
well,
I
found
that
useful
on
the
economic
projections.
What
economic,
what
economic
situation
was
those
projections
done
on?
Are
we
talking
on
the
basis
of
how
it
was
six
months
ago
or
how
it
is
likely
to
be
in
six
months
time,
bearing
in
mind
that
we
might
be?
We
are
now
in
an
entirely
different
world
to
what
we
were
six
months
ago.
J
Start
that
one
off
yeah
I
can
do
I
mean
the
original
environmental
statement
was
based
on
predictions
that
were
pre-covered.
J
We
went
back
to
the
airport
and
asked
them
to
assess
the
impact
of
covert
on
the
airline
industry
and
they
submitted
a
supplementary
environmental
statement
in
end
of
july
early
august,
and
I
think
what
that's
shown
is
that
their
economic
projections
are
the
same
as
what
they
were
pre-covered.
There
is
a
two-year
delay,
so,
ultimately,
when
they
get
to
2030,
they
will
be
in
the
same
economic
situation
as
they
would
have
been
pre-covered.
J
It
will
just
take
two
years
from
the
airport
being
open
for
them
to
start
to
get
to
the
levels
that
they
expected
to
be
before.
J
We
have
had
a
economic
assessment
submitted
by
galba
disputing
this
now.
This
has
only
just
been
recently
received,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning
of
my
presentation,
and
we
need
to
look
at
it
and
and
look
what
they're
saying
and
and
why
they
disagree
with
what
the
predictions
are
that
the
airport
have
come
up
with
and
when
we
come
back
to
you
with
the
final
report,
we'll
have
more
information
on
that.
For
you.
E
That's
okay
and
a
final
question,
and
this
is
about
the
extended
hours.
Looking
through
the
report,
the
only
jury.
The
only
justification
I
can
see
for
extending
the
hours
is
that
newcastle
I've
got
longer
hours,
birmingham's
got
longer
hours,
you
know,
other
places
have
got
those
and,
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
we're
dealing
with
leaks.
E
D
C
Sorry
chair,
I
lost
connection
for
a
few
minutes.
Then
I've
just
okay,
I've,
just
I've
just
come
back
in.
I
just
got
the
end
of
council
blackburn's
comment
about
about
newcastle.
I
think
it
was
probably
a
question
for
the
airport,
but
the
actual
application
I
think,
sets
out
the
intention.
I
think
the
applicants
have
made
comparisons
with
other
regional
airports
and
I
think
the
points
that
have
been
made
basically
say
that
at
the
moment,
leeds
bradford
airport
isn't
isn't
reaching
its
potential
when
compared
to
other
regional
airports.
B
C
I
think
that's
the
context
for
it
and
and
link
to
that
is
how
does
the
leeds
bradford
airport
sit
within
the
local
economic
and
transport
context
within
our
part
of
our
part
of
the
world?
So
I
I
don't
know
if
colleagues
from
the
airport
wanted
to
make
any
any
points
of
clarification
there
chair.
D
Thanks
david,
I
did
bring
you
in
because
I
I
saw
you
wanted
to
speak
on
the
first
question.
So,
yes,
I
will
bring
this
in
mr
reeds
and,
of
course
all
that
is
contained
within
the
report
anyway.
Mr
reese,
please.
Q
Thanks,
mr
chairman,
I
think
the
answer
to
the
question
is
that
the
airlines
that
operate
from
leeds
bradford
cannot
operate
efficiently
unless
they
can
start
at
that
time
of
the
morning.
So
in
order
to
operate
aircraft
efficient
efficiently
and
recover
the
economic
cost
of
those
aircraft
and
the
cost
of
running
them,
they
need
to
begin
in
the
early
early
morning
and
that
typical
airline
will
do
six
to
eight
rotations.
R
Sure,
yes,
thank
you
very
much,
and
I
think
it's
probably
just
in
answer
to
mr
blackburn's
question
about
is
it?
Is
it
simply
and
I'm
just
paraphrasing?
Is
it
simply
because
others
have
got
the
same
kind
of
restriction
or
got
more
lenient
restrictions
that
the
airport
should
be
allowed?
It
isn't
that
simple
chair
it's
presented
in
the
environmental
impact
assessment
and
the
planning
submission
what
the
impacts
of
this
proposal
are
specifically
in
this
area.
R
We
are
actually
reimposing
new
mitigation
that
is
more
modern
and
that
addresses
the
impacts
in
this
particular
case
to
a
level
that
is
deemed
acceptable
and
appropriate
by
your
technical
advisors.
D
Thanks
tim
moving
on
to
comments
then
and
surprise,
surprise,
councillor
blackburn
you're,
first
up
for
a
comment
and
we're
going
back
in
the
alphabetical
order.
E
Back
on
again,
by
the
way,
yeah
right
well,
quite
clearly,
I've
I'm
all
be
mused.
After
all,
the
all
these
questions
are
being
answered
than
prior
to
it
I
mean
if
we
can't
take
into
consideration
the
flights
coming
in
and
out.
Basically,
we
might
as
well
not
have
a
climate
emergency,
because
the
fact
is
a
70,
odd
percent,
increasing
in
in
passage
numbers
is
going
to
produce
more
pollution.
E
I
think
it
was,
I
think
what
was
it
now?
The
uk
committee
on
climate
change
said
growth
to
a
maximum
of
25
percent.
Well,
this
is
70,
odd
percent
and
the
thing
is
it
isn't
I
I
do
not
believe
it's
about
taking
passengers
from
manchester
or
london
or
whatever.
I
believe
what
it
is.
It's
the
industry
because
everybody's
trying
to
expand
it's
the
industry
trying
to
expand
a
number
of
flights
and
as
a
nation
as
a
world
we
can't
afford
to
allow
more
flights.
We
need
to
reduce
them,
not
increase
them.
E
So
I
say
I'm
not
being
happy
about
my
a
lot
of
to
answers
that
we've
got
there
and
I'll.
I
want
some
clarity
about
how
far
we
can
go.
Certainly,
other
authorities
have
turned
things
down
on
on
that
basis.
The
other
thing
about
the
hours
as
this,
as
I
said
as
I
was
just
questioning
there,
the
fact
is
these
hours
were
given
for
a
reason,
and
I
I
totally
believe
that
that
should
that
there
should
remain.
I
can't
see
any
good
reason
for
doing
it.
It's
about
operational
matters.
Well,
no!
E
D
Okay,
thank
you
david
councillor,
kelly
brooks
please
kaylee.
B
F
You're
still
no
well
done
good.
I
I've
got
a
number
of
comments,
basically
around
the
the
questions
we're
going
to
be
asked.
F
From
a
local
ward
member's
point
of
view,
because
the
people
who
live
in
my
area
have
to
put
up
with
the
people
on
the
street,
I
would
strongly
oppose
that
and
that's
not
prejudging
the
application
chair.
I
am
somewhat
concerned
that
and
the
the
the
highways
works,
even
if
we,
if
we
can't
make
any
comment
whatsoever
about
the
about
the
aircraft-
and
I
suppose
my
the
information
I
got
was
reflecting
these
air
flights.
F
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
are
allowed
to
comment
on
the
pollution
caused
by
aircraft
taxiing,
which
is
an
interesting
question
for
somebody
later
on.
I
I
I
am
concerned
that
we're
we're
going
to
increase
the
amount
of
pollution
in
the
lee's
district.
F
This
we
seem
to
be
relying
on
other
people
being
good
to
deal
with
an
increase
here.
F
F
F
We
talk
about
a
lot
of
things
which
I
think
are
really
difficult
to
measure.
Aren't
they
so
we
talk
about
aircraft
noise,
we
talk
about
vehicle
movements
and
we
get
phrases
like
it's
minimal
or
it's
a
minor
increase
or
it's
not.
F
It's
not
too
much
trouble
for
the
network,
but
these
are
significant
numbers
of
vehicle
movements
and
aircraft
movements
which
create
noise.
Noise
is
relative,
so
to
say
that
a
modern
aircraft
is
quieter
than
an
old.
One
is
true
but,
as
I
often
say,
people
don't
wake
up
in
the
middle
of
the
night
when
a
plane
goes
over
and
say
to
themselves
my
my
that's
a
nice
quiet
airplane,
but
it's
relative
and
it's
the
amount
of
noise
that
we're
in
totality.
F
I
think
so.
What
we're
actually
saying
is
the
amount
of
noise
that
the
airport
will
produce
will
increase
and
there
will
be
significantly
more
at
night,
which
I'm
I'm
really
have
some
concerns
about.
If
I
just
just,
I
think
we're
asked
a
question
about
regarding
air
quality,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
it's
obvious
that
air
quality
will
deteriorate
and
we
tell
you
when
we
say
about
a
negligible
effect.
F
Well,
I
I
cannot
believe
that
all
those
that
what
at
least
a
million
and
a
half
extra
vehicle
movements
to
the
airport
will
not
produce
more
than
a
negligible
effect
and
again
that's
about
mitigation
I'll
just
take
if
you
just
bear
with
me,
as
I'm
dying
to
go
through
quickly.
I've
talked
about
the
noise.
Again,
we
go
back
to
this
issue
and
I
think
david
touched
on.
It
really
isn't
it,
which
is
the
the
night
time
playing,
is
a
major
issue
locally.
F
F
I
think
the
rest
of
it's
probably
going
to
be
something
that
we
do
at
the
when
the
application
comes
back.
I
think
I've
added
a
couple
of
comments
about
the
design
landscaping.
F
Quite
frankly,
there
isn't
enough
landscaping.
It's
it's
very
clear
that
this
though
it's
a
an
interesting
building
and
appears
to
be
quite
well
designed,
it
will
be
very
prominent
within
the
landscape,
and
so
there
could
be
a
lot
more
mitigation.
I
think
put
in
place
to
to
deal
with
that
and
I
think
our
conservation
people
are
not
happy
with
the
details
of
the
ecology
and
biodiversity
program.
So
can
I
leave
it
at
that
chair.
D
That's
fine,
colin,
thank
you
for
those
comments.
Councillor
peter
khalil,
please
pete,.
G
I'll
keep
mine
reasonably
brief,
because
I
I
know
I
had
a
lot
of
the
questions,
but
I
think
the
one
thing
I'll
say
really
I'm
thinking
about
when
this
comes
back
and
I
think
thank
you
for
all
the
complicated
legal
answers
around
there,
because
I
think
that
has
provided
very
valuable
advice
to
assist.
Certainly
in
my
deliberations,
I'm
sure
other
members,
but
I
think
the
one
the
one
then
concern.
I
have
the
detail
of
the
report.
We've
got
and
the
questions
I'll
have
that
go
unanswered.
G
Is
that
given
a
number
of
those
matters
of
the
national
climate
change
targets
and
the
paris
agreement?
Are
mr
hills,
I
think
wordsworth
cannot
say
it's
immaterial
so
material
considerations
in
this.
I
think
I
will
really
need
more
detail
in
that,
because
when
we
get
beyond
what
we've
got
in
the
report
about
the
local
climate
change
targets,
there's
really
little
detail
in
in
whether
we
can
say
any
decision
we
make
today
renders
any
of
those
acts
difficult
to
to
difficult
to
meet
those
targets.
G
Therefore,
I
think
we
really
need
we'll
need
more
detail
around.
That
I
mean
one
thing
that
I
have
that's
just
a
point
of
comment
and
a
real
concern
to
me
in
the
report
is:
if
we
look
at
10.23,
for
instance,
which
talks
about
our
leads
climate
goal,
not
the
national
ones.
It
does
state
that
it's
not
possible
to
conclude
whether
the
increase
will
prevent
our
leads
goal
and
similar
in
the
next
paragraph.
G
He
said
about
the
national
one,
but
it
will
require
equivalent
reductions
to
make
up
for
it
from
other
sectors
or
sources.
I
mean
from
the
work
I've
seen
in
leeds
and
at
west
yorkshire
and
at
national
level,
and
I
think,
probably
around
the
world
really.
Those
targets
that
have
been
set
have
been
set
because
they
are
the
quickest
we
can
feasibly
get
when
everyone
plays
all
efforts
they
can
in
order
to
tackle
the
emergency
of
climate
change.
G
I
think
I
do
take
somewhat
of
an
affront
at
the
report
suggesting
that
it's
possible
that
if
the
airport
contributes
more
than
we
expect
that
somebody
else
will
be
able
to
reduce
theirs
further,
because
really,
I
think
it's
quite
clear
that
everyone
needs
to
play
their
part
in
going.
As
far
as
they
can,
and
that
really
is
the
ambition
of
this
council
and
hopefully
of
wider
areas
in
that,
so
I
think
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
I'd
like
to
see
some
more
details
as
that
in
the
report
when
it
comes
back.
Thank
you.
D
Peter
moving
on
councillor
dan
cohn,
please.
A
Thank
you
chair
in
many
ways
I
found
today
really
interesting,
in
fact,
in
lots
of
ways
I
found
today
really
interesting,
not
least
it's
the
first
time.
I've
actually
sat
on
a
panel
where
it
really
seems
many
colleagues
are
finding
more
and
more
reasons
why
they
will
be
able
to
refuse
something.
That's
ultimately
going
to
be
a
major
driver
for
economic
prosperity
in
the
city.
I
still
have,
to
be
honest,
have
a
very
much
open
mind.
A
I
share
many
of
the
concerns
around
emissions
and
climate
change
that
colleagues
have
raised,
but
I
think
there's
a
balance
on
on
whether
we
actually
want
to
deliver
12,
000,
plus
new
jobs,
and
what
our
and
what
weight
we
need
to
give
to
certain
elements
of
the
emissions
that
are
undoubtedly
going
to
be
generated.
A
I
think
councillor
wallshaw
actually
kicked
off
for
me
with,
probably,
I
think,
the
most
important
bit
of
information
we
need
and
kazla
carlo
also
referred
to
it.
I
think
we
need
some
unequivocal
qc
advice
as
to
where
the
domestic
and
international
emissions
lay,
because
what
we
were
told
is
undoubtedly
true.
We
can
make
any
decision
we
like.
We
are
a
panel
of
elected
members.
We
can
make
any
decision.
We
like,
I
always
used
to
say
to
clients.
A
You
could
look
I'll,
advise
you,
you
can
make
any
decision
you
like,
but
actually
that
doesn't
mean
that
you're
not
going
to
make
a
legally
bad
decision
and
we
can
make
a
decision.
That's
a
legally
poor
decision
that
will
get
overturned
at
appeal
and
the
city
will
be
hit
with
the
costs,
because
we've
followed,
we've
not
followed
a
sensible
legal
position,
which
is
why
what
councilman
walsh
all
said
is
exactly
right.
A
Should
we
be
considering
as
part
of
this
application,
the
emissions
that
will
come
from
local,
sorry,
domestic
and
international
flights,
because
if
we
should
be,
if
that
is
something
we
ought
to
be
giving
significant
weight
to.
I
think
this
is
a
very
problematic
application
and
I
can
see
that,
but
if
we
are,
if
they
are
not
things
that
we
should
be
giving
significant
weight
to,
then
I
then
I
think
the
positives
it
would
seem
on.
There
seem
to
be
significant
positives
in
this
application.
A
A
We
will
pay
significant
legal
costs
for
the
privilege
and,
frankly,
we
may
run
the
risk
of
looking
somewhat
incompetent
as
a
panel,
if
we've
not
followed
very
clear
legal
advice,
so,
as
I
say,
I
think
that's
really
important.
We
get
that
high
level
legal
advice.
That
is
unequivocal
and
legal
advice
can
be
unequivocal.
A
I
know
because
I
used
to
give
it.
I
also
think
we
need
to
disabuse
ourselves
of
the
notion
that
if
this
doesn't
go
ahead,
that
people
aren't
going
to
go
to
manchester
or
elsewhere
they
are
people
are
going
to
fly.
A
I
I
think
it's
I
understand
the
proposition
as
council
of
wall
street
said
well,
people
might
think
better
of
it
well,
in
which
case,
there's
no
danger
in
giving
this
to
go
ahead,
because
people
will
think
better
of
it
and
they
won't
use
the
flights,
but
people
are
going
to
fly,
businesses
will
want
to
travel
and
therefore,
if
it's
not
available
locally
they'll
travel
further
to
make
those
journeys,
so
I
think
the
the
only
outcome
there
is
that
manchester
does
very
nicely
out
of
this.
A
I'm
lots
of
I'm
surprised,
they've
not
put
a
more
robust
objection
in.
I
think
there
is
a
huge
amount
of
work
still
to
do
here.
I
believe
that
leeds
is
a
dynamic.
A
Vibrant
city
should
have
a
world-class
airport.
I've
heard
nothing
today
that
persuades
me
other
than
that.
That
should
be
one
of
our
ambitions,
and
I
will
look
forward
to
seeing
many
of
the
challenges
and
questions
we've
asked
today
be
addressed
in
somewhat
more
detail.
Thank
you.
Chad.
D
Thank
you
dan
moving
on
then
councillor,
al
garthwaite,
please
al.
H
Yes,
I
think
that
we
have
to
focus
on
leads,
not
the
whole
country
in
our
decision
making
we're
not
responsible.
We
cannot
be
responsible
for
what
happens
elsewhere.
We
have
to
think
just
about
leads
and
our
obligations
to
leads,
and
that's
where
I'm
going
to
be
making
my
decisions.
H
I
think
that
much
of
what
I
said
watch
what
I
think
has
been
said
so
far.
I
would
say
that
when
you
look
at
diversity,
we
only
have
to
look
at
the
favorable
effect
of
lockdown
on
diversity.
Fewer
planes
and
cars
mean
more
diverse
biodiversity.
That's
just
how
it
is.
H
Having
said
that,
we
have
to
balance
up
the
other
advantages
of
those
forms
of
transport
in
terms
of
economic
benefits.
I
think
we
have
to
weigh
them
up
against
the
health,
environment
and
social
effects,
and
that's
what
I
shall
be
seeking
to
do
when
I
look
at
the
report
that
comes
to
us
next,
with
all
the
answers
to
the
questions
that
we've
asked
today.
D
Thank
you,
councillor
hamilton.
D
You
sharon,
council,
latte.
K
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
must
confess
that
I
was
sitting
here
listening
to
my
colleague,
councillor
cohen,
and
silently
cheering
him
on.
It
can't
just
be
political,
but
he
and
I
are
obviously
very
very
much
of
a
mind
here.
I
I
do
think
that
this
afternoon,
there's
been
a
feeling
of
sort
of
self-indulgence
about
the
the
way
that
questions
have
been
going,
and
certainly
it
sounded
to
me
as
though
everything
was
predicated
on
turning
this
thing
down.
K
But
I
think
what
we've,
what
we
haven't
focused
on
this
afternoon
is
one:
oh,
no,
not
what
we
haven't
focused
on,
but
nobody
has
mentioned
the
benefits
to
leeds
as
a
city
of
having
an
airport
that
people
when
they,
when
they
land
there
or
go
there
to
go
somewhere
else,
aren't
looking
at
what
is
in
spite
of
the
business
at
the
moment,
a
pretty
rundown,
old-fashioned,
inconvenient
airport
we
want
to.
We
want
leads
to
be
a
major
european
city
still,
and
that
means
attracting
people
here
and
getting
people
to
go
out
from
here.
K
We,
the
benefits
to
the
local
economy
of
the
airport,
are
considerable
and
that,
if
we,
if,
if
we
have
a
better
airport
in
theory,
they
they
should
be
better,
certainly
the
job
creation
that
it
would
bring
not
only
during
the
building,
but
afterwards
when
we
have
or
if
we
have,
I
would
say
from
the
sound
of
the
comments
today,
a
major
new
airport
building
with
greatly
improved
aircraft
flying
from
it.
K
D
Sorry,
I've
muted
myself
there
thank
you,
graeme
moving
on
council
nash,
please.
L
Well,
I
think
councillors
are
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
Clearly,
we
are
all
concerned
about
the
environment
and
we
we
are
under
pressure
from
virtually
all
our
members
of
parliament
and
other
people
to
turn
down
this
application.
L
But
there's
no
doubt
in
my
mind
that
if,
for
whatever
reason
in
the
end,
we
do
turn
down
the
application,
there
will
be
an
appeal
to
the
secretary
of
state
and
it
will
be
granted.
So
I
think
we
have
to
make
the
best
of
what
we
possibly
can
over
the
development
of
the
airport.
L
L
L
I
I
did
wonder
whether
perhaps
I
ought
to
have
declared
an
interest
in
that
I'm
a
tour
leader
and
I
have
been
doing
it
for
40
years,
but
apart
from
twice
all
my
group
tours
have
been
by
coach,
but
we
we
haven't,
got
the
the
ferris
to
scandinavia,
which
is
the
route.
If
one
is
traveling
to
russia
have
traveled
to
russia
twice
the
baltic
states
twice
norway
four
times
which
includes
sweden
at
the
same
time.
You
can't
do
it
now.
L
L
I
would
dearly
love
there
to
be
an
efficient,
cheap
train
system
in
our
country,
as
well
as
the
ferries
abroad,
but
we
haven't
got
it
and
the
last
time
when
I
did
fly
to
norway,
that
was
the
only
the
second
time
we
did
travel
by
train
to
the
airport.
The
train
was
late
and
there
was
anxiety
and
I'm
thinking
am
I
going
to
be
ruined.
L
L
This
is
a
position
statement
and
I
think,
we've
all
taken
notice
of
it
and
I
would
like
to
take
my
decision
when
the
final
application
comes
up
before
the
panel.
D
Thank
you
liz.
Yes,
I've
been
looking
at
the
questions
and
I
think
most
of
them
we've
answered
somewhere
in
today's
meeting,
but
I'll
be
duty-bound
to
put
them
to
you
anyway.
Council
reagan,
please.
D
Thank
you
denise
councillor
wadsworth,
please.
M
Gosh
you
got
to
me
yeah.
I
will
be
brief,
because
no
doubt
council
wall
show
will
not
be
brief.
So
we've
got
that
to
come,
no
doubt
because
he
had
a
lot
of
questions
and
he'll
have
a
lot
of
comments.
Just
regarding
changing
the
world.
When
I
came
on
council,
I
wanted
to
change
the
world
all
for
the
better
and
a
number
of
years.
I've
had
to
forget
how
many
years
I've
been
on
council
I'm
still
here
and
I
haven't
changed
much
of
the
world.
M
So
I
think
the
world
and
travel
is
not
something
that
this
council
can
deal
with,
nor
the
airport.
I
have
to
say
they
are
certainly
reliant
on
the
technology
that's
available
at
the
time
and
the
present
situation
is
putting
technology
back,
not
bringing
it
forward,
and
I
think,
as
council
campbell
spoke
about
relative
noise,
noise
is
relative
and
sitting
here.
I
think
I've
heard
one
plane
take
off
all
afternoon
and
that's
what
relative
noise
looks
like
enjoying
lockdown.
M
Obviously,
there
were
no
planes
taking
off
or
landing,
and
so
there
was
no
eyes
whatsoever.
So
if
we
want
to
reduce
down
to
zero
noise,
lockdown
is
where
we
need
to
be.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
work
with
the
airport
overnight.
I
don't
believe
that
the
airport
really
wants
to
fly
24
hours
a
day,
bubbling
and
bobbing
out.
Just
when
they're
pleased,
I
believe
really
the
airport
want
an
earlier
hour
to
start
up
in
the
morning,
so
that
they
can
get
the
rotations
in
for
the
airlines
and
enjoy
last
summer.
M
They
did
do
landings
quite
deep
into
the
night
and
I
think
we
need
to
work
with
them
as
to
whether
we
can
eradicate
some
of
that
late
night
early
hours
of
the
morning,
landings
which
I
have
to
say
do
penalize
the
heading
in
hyde
park
areas,
because
that's
not
with
a
rotation
if
there's
no
wind
in
the
summer
that
they're
coming
in
the
takeoffs
are
normally
out
over
the
north
part
of
the
city
and
out
over
the
moors.
So
I
think
that's
really
where
we
need
to
work
with
regards
to
the
one-hour
free
parking.
M
M
The
biggest
users
of
that
are
the
people
in
my
ward
and
encounter
campbell's
ward,
because
it's
about
not
wanting
to
pay
the
three
pound
charge,
the
frequent
flyers
in
general,
who
who
want
to
go
for
business
and
our
local
taxi
firms
that
are
having
to
pay
three
pounds
or
six
pounds
in
some
cases,
if
they've
got
to
go
through
twice
or
what
is
probably
only
a
five
pound
taxi
ride
and
that's
not
sustainable,
but
the
one-hour
free
parking
does
allow
for
that.
I
think
we'd
all
like
to
travel
by
ship.
M
I
think
because
it
counts
for
a
nationalist,
a
tower
by
ship,
but
you
want
to
see
what
ships
fuel
is
like.
It's
like
tar
control
of
nash,
so
I'm
sure
you
wouldn't
want
that
get
into
the
atmosphere
and
with
regard
to
building
replacement,
I
don't
think
we
would
have
these
comments
if
it
was
about
replacing
a
school.
M
The
school
in
my
world
is
currently
being
replaced
and
it's
never
been
to
plans
panel,
and
so
we
are
looking
at
replacing
an
old
building
that
is
leaking
everything,
sometimes
outward,
and
sometimes
inward,
when
it
rains
with
something
of
brienne
quality
and
I'm
sure
we
all
support
the
actual
replacement
of
the
building.
If
we
actually
look
at
it,
there's
been
some
questions
asked
about
its
size,
etc,
but
I
do
think
we
need
to
make
some
progress
with
this
application
and
get
it
sorted
one
way
or
the
other.
M
We
may
well
be
counseling
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place,
but
we
need
to
make
the
decision
rather
than
be
just
sitting
between
those
two
rocks,
and
so
I
think
with
that
councillor
lattice
point
was
a
very
good
one,
but
we
should
have
more
openness
of
mind
rather
than
blinkers
when
looking
at
this
application.
Thank
you,
chad,.
D
Thank
you
paul
yeah,
moving
on
finally
council
wall
shop,
please
neil
thanks
chef.
N
Well,
it's
it's
been
a
it's
been
an
extremely
useful
position.
Statement.
John,
I
think
there's
been
a
a
lot
of
important
issues
raised
by
by
my
colleagues
and
myself.
I
just
think
it's
clear
that
there's
there's
a
if
you
like
a
diversity
of
opinion
onto
what
way
members
will
put
on
different
aspects
of
this
application,
and
I
think
that
that's
right
and
proper.
That's
that's
the
way
it
is,
and
we've
just
been
really.
N
I
think
this
afternoon
trying
to
tease
out
to
make
sure
that
we
have
all
the
information
in
front
of
us
so
what
it
is
to
make
a
very
important
decision
when
this
comes
forward
for
determination.
So
I
mean
there
is
an
awful
lot
we
can
say
I
think
we've
covered
it
in.
I
want,
and
I
won't
say
that
I
won't
go
into
a
huge
essay.
N
Don't
worry
but
clearly
we've
made
it
clear
to
officers
and
the
applicant
the
breadth
and
depth
of
the
information
we
need
for
the
legal
opinion
we
need
and
all
that-
and
I
will
actually
just
leave
it
at
that,
because
this
is
just
a
position
statement
after
all,
but
I
think
there
are
some
enormous,
serious
legal
and
strategic
hurdles
as
his
application
has
to
cross
for
us
to
come
to
a
position
and
to
a
determination.
I
look
forward
to
that
coming
forward
chair.
Thank
you.
D
Thanks
neil,
that
was
short.
I
just
appreciate
it.
It's
been
a
long
day,
but
I
guess
that's
the
reason
why
I
agreed
just
to
have
this
one
item
on
the
agenda.
You
know
I
knew
this.
This
would
be
a
long
one,
it's
difficult
time
for
members
and
they
have
to
carefully
consider
everything
which
I
think
they
are
doing
in
asking
dalget.
To
sum
up,
can
I
guide
you
towards
section
11
with
the
nine
questions?
D
B
Don't
think
bearing
in
mind
how
the
debate
and
has
gone
and
how
the
afternoon
has
gone,
I
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
put
those
questions.
We
members
have
made
their
comments
quite
clear
and
we
we
do
record
these
meetings
now,
so
those
will
be
captured
in
full
detail
and
I
think
it's
incumbent
upon
officers
and
the
applicant
to
work
through
the
comments
that
have
been
raised
and
to
make
sure
that
we
prepare
appropriate
replies.
When
we
come
back
to
you
for
determination.
B
I've
just
made
a
bullet
point
list
of
some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
raised
but,
as
I
said,
there
may
have
been
other
comments
that
will
are
recorded
and
we
will
go
through,
but
clearly
parliament
is
seeking
clear,
unequivocal
guidance
on
whether
local
and
national
flight
carbon
emissions
can
be
taken
to
account
and
how
much
weight
to
put
put
put
to
local
and
national
guidance.
In
that
respect.
B
There's
there
was
also
comments
raised
about
the
implications
of
the
carbon
emissions
relate
to
development
in
terms
of
the
least
target
to
achieve
zero
carbon
emissions
by
2030.
B
The
there
were
questions
raised
about
the
impact
of
the
development
on
road
traffic,
particularly
the
use
of
electric
vehicles,
as
we
go
forward
and
the
contributions
towards
public
transport
measures,
including
the
proposed
railway
station,
the
questions
about
connectivity
and
routes
between
the
proposed
station,
the
employment
pub
and
the
airport.
B
There
was
questions
and
discussion
around
the
impact
of
the
the
aircraft
on
on
noise
and
the
implications
of
that
in
terms
of
local
and
national
guidance.
There
was
also
a
discussion
around
the
economic
impact
of
the
development
and
the
benefits
that
that
would
bring
to
the
area,
and
then
there
were
technical
questions
around
how
the
crawl
back
of
potential
trade
from
other
airports
was
looked
at
and
and
being
considered.
B
B
D
Thank
you,
belgium.
Yes,
the
report
is
only
a
position
statement
and
members
were
being
asked.
The
questions
which
I
think
they've
they've
answered
and
provided
comments
which
was
needed,
and
I
thank
you
for
that.
Can
I
thank
all
who's
attended
and
certainly
mr
reese
and
mr
warring
from
legion
bradford
air
force
who
provided
us
with
interesting
technical
assistance.
I
would
hope
that
we
have
a
bit
more
next
time
around,
because
these
questions
are
important.
D
I
need
answers
for
members
to
make
the
decisions
they
need
to
make
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
but
again.
Thank
you.
All
it's
been
very
interesting
and
I'm
sure
people
who
have
plugged
in
on
youtube
on
the
web
will
have
found
the
very
interesting
I
certainly
have
just
sat
here
in
the
chair.
Listen
to
you
all
speak
so
with
that,
I
will
close
the
meeting
just
remind
you.
We
have
another
planning
meeting
on
the
1st
of
october
city
plans.