It basically says that the tribunal in Kassel decided against the BUND (a German organisation that is trying to protect the environment) and the local villages.
These guys were against the construction, as it is supposed to happen on 13,5ha of protected(!!) forest.
The only thing they achieved was that LH will need to build noise reduction walls around the hangar.
Let's not forget that this thing is supposed to be 350m long, 140m wide and 35m high. It can hold 4 A380's or 6 747's.
Apparently, the BUND had suggested/questioned why the hangar could not be built on the existing FRA land or on the former US Air Force site on the other side of the runways.
I actually have to agree with them. I mean, I love planes like all of you.
I also see the economic interest of Lufthansa Technik, etc, etc.
But if this forest is protected by law, then how come things can just be changed for the "greater good" when needed! Quite annoying but I guess it's a relief for LH to know they can actually maintain the monster once they get at the end of 2007.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6471 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2727 times:
Quoting LoungeLover (Thread starter): Apparently, the BUND had suggested/questioned why the hangar could not be built on the existing FRA land or on the former US Air Force site on the other side of the runways.
The USAFB (AFAIK to be vacated at End 2005) is slated to become the site of Terminal 3, which makes perfect sense, as it is very close to the A5 motorway (T3 will get its own exit from the motorway).
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
Glidepath73 From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 50 Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2687 times:
I think even lots of law protected land goes away for every new highway or bullet train track. All other traffic branches want to expand. But if suddenly a airport wants to expand, everybody is jelling and complaining! (Even in Hamburg/Finkenwerder, Airbus had big problems with the RWY extension)
They same right for all!
Good news for LH. FRA has to expand (New Runway in the north and T3 as HT said already) Look at CDG or AMS!
Quoting LoungeLover (Reply 4): Well Terminal 3 makes sense..but still, I can't get my head around the fact that nothing is really ever "a done deal". Maybe I'm an idealist, but protecting the environment should be a priority.
And it probably is part of the Spairliners programme. The political pressure behind this must be huge.
Protecting the environment is a high priority in Germany but we need to make the money to allow us to that as well. This simple fact of life has been neglected far too often in the past 35 years and put us last on the OECD list in terms of gnp growth, down from No. 1 not too far ago. If you take a look at a satellite picture you will see that only a tiny fraction of the forrest needs to be razed,l about 20 hectare and it leaves enough buffering to the next town. Same as with the diagonal runway 18 which by the way is surrounded by a protected biotope like lawn which could not exist in public places with people trampling around.
It is with everything in life, compromises have to be made and without the world cannot exist, The organization which calls itself BUND is unable to compromise, they want their point of view and accept nothing else. The answer has been given by the court today and that is OK. And it is a compromise, because Fraport/LH have agreed that no parking garage will be build close to the hangar with employees being bused from remote parking, that way the total land use could be minimized.
The argument that there was place at other airport locations is simply wrong, there is no space available which has not yet been allocated for future growth and misusing that space now would only have meant that the same arguments will pop up in the future again, when some other building is needed.
The NIMBY fraction still does not and will never accept that non-essential facilities have been moved away from the airport long times ago. A maintenance hangar however is an essential project and has to be located at the best possible location
That was approved today and that means today was a good day for the region.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
In general, there is a tendency during the last years that big projects in Germany are easier to be done. The laws in Germany have actually become very efficient. Once the Planfeststellungsbeschluss (the Decision which exactly states, how the airport will be done) has become valid, it is binding. Claims against airplane noise and other problems can not be brought before court anymore, if the airport sticks to the rules and conditions laid down in the Planfeststellungsbeschluss.
Also, before the Planfeststellungsbeschluss is valid, it is a very precise procedure you have to do if you want to bring complaints against it. There is only one court instance, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (federal court on administrative law), which makes a binding, final decision.
As we can see now in the BBI case, this takes time. The Planfeststellungsbeschluss is only lawful and binding, if it is done according to the law. There are laws that protect the environment and so on, so only if the requirements of these laws are met, the Planfeststellungsbeschluss can be binding. This takes time, usually some years like we can see in the pending decision about the BBI. But this is something we have to live with, as there ARE legitimate interests of neighbours. Noise has to be avoided whenever possible, and to ensure this, compromises have to be made. The judges have to rule if these compromises are met, and if you plan a big project properly, there should not be problems. In BBI, this was not done, instead everything was rushed, so there remains reasonable doubt on whether the Planfeststellungsbeschluss is lawful.
Of course, there are people and organisations who try to use the law as a weapon to get their interests. But therefore, the law was changed so that there is only one court left to decide the case, so that if it find it lawful, everything is lawful, and no more deliberate delays of the process are possible.
It is not as bad as a system as many people might think, in fact, I think it is a good system, as it finds a good balance between the individual interests and the interests of an airport. It is true that it takes some years to get that final decision, but that is acceptable: If you can do traffic forecasts for 20 years, you can also start planning 10years before you start building!
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7763 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
If we get the legal planning and zoning lead times including the time it takes to get the appeals through court down to a resonable 5-10 years, then we will be in a pretty good shape to handle the infrstructural needs flexible and in a positive fashion which will be good for the country and its people.
It is possible, many mayors do that already in their towns, get zoning and planning and authorization to build for new industry done quickly and in the interest of all concerned. There is no reason whatsoever why this cannot be achieved for airports and their infrastructure and for railways and roads as well.