Luton Airport is seen by many as a bad neighbour Airport. This has again been highlighted when the ruling Labour group at the Council once again refused to back a motion that the Airport should pay for new Residential Parking schemes, due to roads close to the Airport being blighted by Holiday Parking.
So far, one scheme is up and running, but the Council has forced residents to fund a Parking Permit scheme themselves, that is seen by many as a cash cow for the Council. Before these first parking restrictions were introduced, a vote was held at full Council that either the Airport owner or the Airport Operator should fund the scheme. The Directors of Luton Rising, the company that owns the Airport on behalf of the council, and who are also Councillors for the ruling group, refused to declare an interest and voted against the motion to make sure it was defeated. This was later condemned by the Local Government Ombudsman in a stinging report regarding a Conflict of Interest.
While the Airport Owner and Airport Operator, with the full support of Luton Borough Council, refuses to commit any funding to help local communities tackle street parking caused by their Airport, Stansted has ring fenced substantial funds for parking schemes: https://www.bishopsstortfordindependent.co.uk/news/stansted-airport-ringfences-200k-to-tackle-fly-parking-nuis-9340890/
“The airport’s head of corporate affairs, Joe Chapman, updated members of Stansted Parish Council at their meeting last Wednesday (Nov 15) – and urged them and other councils to apply for money to help tackle the problem. He revealed the airport had ring-fenced £200,000 to alleviate the nuisance of air passengers parking in streets in towns and villages around the airport to avoid paying parking fees when they fly abroad.
Mr Chapman said: “We have transport forums and a sub-group which specifically deal with issues of fly-parking and have made progress with how we tackle this issue, with a significant pot of money ring-fenced to deal with local traffic, but it is the prerogative of local communities and councils to act. We have the money to invest.”
He assured councillors that it was working closely with other organisations, including Essex Trading Standards and Uttlesford District Council, to stop “meet and greets” and discourage taxis from picking up passengers from the streets and taking them to the airport”.
We feel the contrast with Luton could not be greater with the principal difference being that the Council in Luton owns the airport and has made a political decision rather than putting residents first, while the airport operator, unlike Stansted, has no interest in the plight of local communities.
26th September 2023 at 6.00 pm
92 Notice of Motion (Ref 11.3)
(a) It was proposed by Councillor Franks, seconded by Councillor Steve Stephens, but following a recorded vote in accordance with Standing Order 21.2 was lost:
Council:
• Acknowledges that residents of Vauxhall, Round Green, Wigmore, Stopsley, South and Central Wards suffer from inconsiderate parking by people employed at or near the airport and by passengers unwilling to pay car park charges.
• Notes that the Council’s highways officers have carried out extensive consultation with residents of some of these areas on possible measures to reduce the damage to their quality of life due to this airport parking problem.
• Accepts that this problem is entirely due to airport operations and would not exist if London Luton Airport was not there.
• Considers that, since the parking problem is entirely caused by London Luton Airport, its customers and related employees, the airport should bear the whole and complete cost of any necessary measures introduced by the Council to reduce the damage to the quality of life of residents of the affected areas.
• Requests the Chief Executive and other relevant Council officers to commence discussions with London Luton Airport Limited & London Luton Airport Operations Limited to secure their agreement to pay, in full, the costs of introducing and operating any parking regulation schemes designed to deal with the problem including costs which would otherwise be borne by the residents.
For the Motion: Councillors Ahmed, Baker, Franks, Fry, Gallagher, Keens, Marshall, Moore, Petts, Skepelhorn, Stephens, Underwood and Wynn (13). Against the Motion: Councillors Abbas, Ajisola, Umme Ali, Ambia, Fatima Begum, Yarun Begum, Burnett, Chowdhury, Farooq, Javed Hussain, Mahmood Hussain, Samia Hussain, Lovell, Mahmood, Rehana Malik, Naser, Raja, Roche, Saleem, Shaw, Simmons, Steer, Dave Taylor (23). Abstain from the Motion: Councillor Aslam Khan (1). Absent from the Motion: Councillors Amjid Ali, Bridgen, Hanif, Javeria Hussain, Isles, Alia Khan, Khtija Malik, Mead, Miller, Nicholls, James Taylor (11)