Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[HX3]

Why defend something you don’t own? Let the framework do the talking. What is clearly lost to the media and the idiots with no name, is that precedent is set already right across the country with what is reasonable. What the airport are doing is challenging the council on application and wording, so why defend that. Much better to let common sense rule the day and let the idiots and the media get themselves in a frenzy; I do think the airport may have the last laugh here.

 

[White Heather]

Why defend something you don’t own? Let the framework do the talking. What is clearly lost to the media and the idiots with no name, is that precedent is set already right across the country with what is reasonable. What the airport are doing is challenging the council on application and wording, so why defend that. Much better to let common sense rule the day and let the idiots and the media get themselves in a frenzy; I do think the airport may have the last laugh here.

As this is a legal process, hence no public comment being allowed, (despite the idiotic Councillors telling people to complain to the Planning Officer), the last thing the airport should do is start getting into media debates about what they are doing, so I totally agree with you. There are times to speak and times to shut up, especially with legal issues. If the airports legal advisors suggest clarification then no doubt the airport might do so, but we have a CEO who refuses to get into public slanging matches with the group that shall not be named, or anyone else. Nothing the public say, positive or negative, should influence the outcome . It's up to LBA to supply evidence to support their legal argument . If they do so successfully, the Council are on a sticky wicket if they refuse and could end up eventually in court. If the airport fails, then their only option is to submit a fresh planning application.

There's no doubt that the airport and Planning officer have been in conversation for months on and off about this and it's now come to a head. But I doubt very much that the issue here is with the Planning Officer, or his staff. Pretty sure that there are other forces at work here, instructing him as to what his response will be .

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Why defend something you don’t own? Let the framework do the talking. What is clearly lost to the media and the idiots with no name, is that precedent is set already right across the country with what is reasonable. What the airport are doing is challenging the council on application and wording, so why defend that. Much better to let common sense rule the day and let the idiots and the media get themselves in a frenzy; I do think the airport may have the last laugh here.

They do own it. They negotiated the agreement.

 

[White Heather]

They do own it. They negotiated the agreement.

No they didn't. It's not an agreement. It's a planning consent and it was imposed on the airport, not negotiated. No airport would negotiate an agreement that is so restrictive.

 

[ChrisBBB]

Well it will be all over the media soon and not in a positive way. I can see GALBA making a real meal of this and the airport not defending their position.

T&A already have, a semi anti LBA rhetoric again

 

[LBAYORKIE]

T&A already have, a semi anti LBA rhetoric again

So does the Wharfedale.

Campaigners fury as airport accused of trying to change night flight cap rules

LEEDS Bradford Airport (LBA) has been accused of trying to effectively ditch the night-time flights cap it was found to have broken last summer.

www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk

As I said in my previous posting I dont think the airport will clarify the position, leading to the public making up their own minds based on GALBA's perspective.

 

[White Heather]

So does the Wharfedale.

Campaigners fury as airport accused of trying to change night flight cap rules

LEEDS Bradford Airport (LBA) has been accused of trying to effectively ditch the night-time flights cap it was found to have broken last summer.

www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk

As I said in my previous posting I dont think the airport will clarify the position, leading to the public making up their own minds based on GALBA's perspective.

You give that lot too much credit. There's plenty of public who have already made their minds up that they make more noise than the planes and it's they that should be closed down.

In the end, it's a legal challenge so what that lot, Joe Public, you, or I think isn't relevant. It's a lawful Government process that cannot be challenged.

Either the airport win their case or they dont but no point in worrying about the noisy minority. They're going to be apoplectic when the terminal gets started too as they watch the noose they thought they had tied around the airports neck come loose. The funny thing is, that it's their actions that have led to this action being taken by LBA. Poetic justice will be done if LBA come out with even one of these certificates.

As for publicising the airports intentions, I'm told that they have been battling with the press and media all day to correct the misleading and incorrect reporting and the press are seemingly only interested in printing a negative slant as that's what attracts readers. Sadly, it's par for the course. Fortunately, there are people who are intelligent enough to not believe all they read in the rags and can see through the anti airport propaganda.

 

[Aviador]

There will of course be those out there who will play devil's advocate on this and say our beloved MPs will quite happily send the aircraft and all the business and inward investment aviation brings to Doncaster given half a chance.

 

[Snackbar]

First of the local MPs to make a noise on Social Media - even though he is factually incorrect! Very poor for a Minister of State, can’t say I’m surprised though!

Stuart Andrew MP
Elsewhere in the patch, I am aware that Leeds Bradford Airport have applied to Leeds City Council to alter the restrictions they are under regarding night-time flying. I will ensure that the potential implications of this for my constituents is made clear to Leeds City Council.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

First of the local MPs to make a noise on Social Media - even though he is factually incorrect! Very poor for a Minister of State, can’t say I’m surprised though!

Stuart Andrew MP
Elsewhere in the patch, I am aware that Leeds Bradford Airport have applied to Leeds City Council to alter the restrictions they are under regarding night-time flying. I will ensure that the potential implications of this for my constituents is made clear to Leeds City Council.

No surprise. Some local politicians and the media just strir up the public with mis-infomation or economy with the truth.

Ive always maintained that the airport has to win over the public and explanation of the facts would be a good start.

 

[White Heather]

First of the local MPs to make a noise on Social Media - even though he is factually incorrect! Very poor for a Minister of State, can’t say I’m surprised though!

Stuart Andrew MP
Elsewhere in the patch, I am aware that Leeds Bradford Airport have applied to Leeds City Council to alter the restrictions they are under regarding night-time flying. I will ensure that the potential implications of this for my constituents is made clear to Leeds City Council.

He can bleat to Leeds City Council all he likes. It's precisely to avoid the bleatings of this kind that the process now being followed exists. A legal process that should not be influenced by MPs or Councillors who always assume that the public oppose it. They all drive me nuts.

One Councillor stated to his adoring public that no other airport in the UK had unrestricted night flights. Neither will LBA even if successful,.but clearly he hasn't bothered to check his facts or check the operating hours/restrictions at various other airports..

 

[The Pole]

First of the local MPs to make a noise on Social Media - even though he is factually incorrect! Very poor for a Minister of State, can’t say I’m surprised though!

Stuart Andrew MP
Elsewhere in the patch, I am aware that Leeds Bradford Airport have applied to Leeds City Council to alter the restrictions they are under regarding night-time flying. I will ensure that the potential implications of this for my constituents is made clear to Leeds City Council.

He needs to get his finger out of his arse and deal with real issues. I for one have raised issues with him and he passes it on. Waste of space.
Fact is the majority of folk in and around Leeds now were born after the airport was so deal with it.
If they moved here recently, tough!

More cars on the road, more planes in the sky, shops open on a Sunday,
Progress, life goes on.

 

[michael]

I agree 100% with 'White Heather' on this, it's a legal process not planning application. Having gone through a certificate of lawful use escapade for our own family business some 12 years ago - albeit not aviation related - as far as I understand the process if the applicant can prove beyond all reasonable doubt by producing evidence such as photographic and others - in this case I would think flight movement logs could be a major one - that whatever breach has been continually breached for a minimum of 10 years then the planning authority has very little option but to allow the certificate of lawfulness. It's not a complete given, but it has a high chance of success and as 'Finger 66' said it looks like the Airport are going in with both barrels (or maybe 5) with the theory that if they get a proportion of what they're applying for then it'll be a major move in the right direction. Affidavits might have to be signed but I'm sure the airport bosses won't mind that!

 

[Len Fish]

Presumably to attempt to interfere in a legal process that specifically prohibits any interference from outside is an offence in itself, perverting the course of justice perhaps. These people need to be very careful.

 

[Aviador]

as 'Finger 66' said it looks like the Airport are going in with both barrels (or maybe 5) with the theory that if they get a proportion of what they're applying for then it'll be a major move in the right direction.

Can somebody explain in laymen's terms what the 5 certificates would mean in practice.

Presumably to attempt to interfere in a legal process that specifically prohibits any interference from outside is an offence in itself, perverting the course of justice perhaps. These people need to be very careful.

indeed they do as it is a serious offence and for the moment they're don't appear to be heeding that warning.

 

[White Heather]

Can somebody explain in laymen's terms what the 5 certificates would mean in practice.

indeed they do as it is a serious offence and for the moment they're don't appear to be heeding that warning.

Its hard to say without the original planning consent in front of me, but basically a couple relate to confirming aircraft with a quota count below 1 are exempt, one will define what is exempt and where that definition is, and the others relate to the airport being immune from enforcement action should they exceed the night quota.

That may be over simplifying it but that's how I see it.

I tried to amend the above but was timed out. Having looked in more detail, but still without the original approval to refer to, my take is:
The first would exempt the Airport from having an enforcement notice served in them for allowing a QC1 departure during night hours - so Wizz flights that are late can depart without dear if retribution.

The second is relating to MAX and NEO aircraft and confirms sections 6(a) and (b) of the planning approval do not apply to QC 0.5 or less aircraft.

The third exempts QC 0.25 aircraft completely from night time restrictions (not sure which types are 0.25)

The fourth clarifies what is exempt and where the definition is within the planning conditions (this being a point if contention between airport and council)

The fifth exempts all aircraft that are delayed from enforcement action, preventing diverts, and also allows all emergency movements irrespective of quota count.

So, the airport are not seeking to vary the night time movement limit, or the periods the summer and winter cover, but are trying to prove what is exempt under the planning consent and where it says so. The implications are that delayed and emergency flights wouldn't count irrespective of when the movement was or aircraft type, ending any rusk if diversion or overnight hotel stays (Wizz Air!), whilst the new generation aircraft could fly any time.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Lets not keep discussing this ad fin

Its hard to say without the original planning consent in front of me, but basically a couple relate to confirming aircraft with a quota count below 1 are exempt, one will define what is exempt and where that definition is, and the others relate to the airport being immune from enforcement action should they exceed the night quota.

That may be over simplifying it but that's how I see it.

I tried to amend the above but was timed out. Having looked in more detail, but still without the original approval to refer to, my take is:
The first would exempt the Airport from having an enforcement notice served in them for allowing a QC1 departure during night hours - so Wizz flights that are late can depart without dear if retribution.

The second is relating to MAX and NEO aircraft and confirms sections 6(a) and (b) of the planning approval do not apply to QC 0.5 or less aircraft.

The third exempts QC 0.25 aircraft completely from night time restrictions (not sure which types are 0.25)

The fourth clarifies what is exempt and where the definition is within the planning conditions (this being a point if contention between airport and council)

The fifth exempts all aircraft that are delayed from enforcement action, preventing diverts, and also allows all emergency movements irrespective of quota count.

So, the airport are not seeking to vary the night time movement limit, or the periods the summer and winter cover, but are trying to prove what is exempt under the planning consent and where it says so. The implications are that delayed and emergency flights wouldn't count irrespective of when the movement was or aircraft type, ending any rusk if diversion or overnight hotel stays (Wizz Air!), whilst the new generation aircraft could fly any time.

A weight limit is also in place for quieter aircraft so this will have to be removed.

 

[Aviador]

Lets not keep discussing this ad fin

A weight limit is also in place for quieter aircraft so this will have to be removed.

Which is crazy as the whole idea of having a night quota is because of noise not weight. It's ridiculous that you could effectively be having as many night flights as you want using a noisy Russian rusty bucket Antonov A22 but a quiet A321neo, no. Or at least that is how it is perceived.

 

[White Heather]

Lets not keep discussing this ad fin

Care to clarify?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Care to clarify?

I didnt know I'd sent this however I was going to say not to waste our breath on each other and to submit our thoughts to the planning committee at the address given in the first post in this thread.

[email protected]