Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[AndyL]

The four new applications are now on the Leeds City Council planning portal dated 14 December. No target dates or documents attached as yet.

 

[KARFA]

Update on new night-time flying applications from Leeds Bradford Airport

Leeds City Council can today provide an update on the process it will follow while dealing with a number of recent applications from Leeds Bradford Airport relating to night-time flying.

news.leeds.gov.uk

04 Jan 2024
Update on new night-time flying applications from Leeds Bradford Airport
LEEDS BRADFORD AIRPORT

Leeds City Council can today provide an update on the process it will follow while dealing with a number of recent applications from Leeds Bradford Airport relating to night-time flying.

The council received four new Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) applications from the airport last month.

The applications, which have today been published in full on the council’s public access planning system, relate to whether certain aircraft movements are permitted at night at Leeds Bradford. They were submitted at the same time as a request from the airport for four previous CLEUD applications to be withdrawn.

The council can now confirm that, in line with national government legislation and guidance, it is undertaking a call for evidence from third parties in relation to two of the new applications.

This means that the council is seeking relevant factual evidence – such as flight data, flight times, flight frequency and size of aircraft – relating to the specific operations at Leeds Bradford outlined in the two applications.

Submissions must relate to the period covered by the airport’s evidence, which is January 1, 2008, through to December 23, 2019.

The call for evidence relates to the two applications (23/07489/CLE and 23/07490/CLE) for which the airport has submitted flight movement data.

It is important to note that a call for evidence is different to a ‘public consultation’, with general comments, objections and opinions not being invited as they cannot be taken into account during the determination process.

Under regulations laid down by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, decisions by local planning authorities – such as the council – on CLEUD applications must be made purely on the basis of relevant factual evidence assessed against a legal test.

Councillor Helen Hayden, Leeds City Council’s executive member for sustainable development and infrastructure, said:
“The call for evidence means that third parties, including members of the public, have an opportunity to provide relevant evidence on these two applications.

“It must be stressed, however, that decisions on the applications cannot take into account evidence or comments which fall outside the determination process’s tightly-defined parameters.

“These parameters are not set by planning authorities such as the council, they are laid down in national law.”

People who believe they have relevant factual evidence relating to the two applications are asked to e-mail the information – including any verifying details – to the council at [email protected] no later than Friday, January 26.

As is standard practice, evidence received will be shared with the applicant prior to the assessment and determination of each application by the council.

 

[Len Fish]

So no different to the previous opportunity to submit very specific evidence, but no doubt the usual suspects will take this extended opportunity to make comments which are irrelevant as far as the applications are concerned. Leeds City Council are between a rock and a hard place, having to abide by the highly restrictive legislation which gives them little room for manoeuvre whilst having to convince all parties, especially the objectors, that everything has been considered in detail before the final decision is made and the proverbial hits the fan if it’s in favour of LBA.

 

[White Heather]

So no different to the previous opportunity to submit very specific evidence, but no doubt the usual suspects will take this extended opportunity to make comments which are irrelevant as far as the applications are concerned. Leeds City Council are between a rock and a hard place, having to abide by the highly restrictive legislation which gives them little room for manoeuvre whilst having to convince all parties, especially the objectors, that everything has been considered in detail before the final decision is made and the proverbial hits the fan if it’s in favour of LBA.

In reality, this is just an exercise to legally confirm the meaning of the previous planning approvals once and for all. They are what they are. Had LCC ( or some lurking within LCC) not been in denial about what is meant, then these CLEUDs wouldn't have neen necessary. Had the future proofing included in the 1994 approval been implemented as intended, then what LBA are seeking to achieve, would have been the norm many moons ago.

 

[Seasider]

If they can submit evidence up to 26 Jan, it's going to be towards the end of February before an announcement is made.

 

[White Heather]

If they can submit evidence up to 26 Jan, it's going to be towards the end of February before an announcement is made.

Yes.
The airport are cool about the wait. Right outcome is all they're bothered about.
Given the latest submissions include data that disproves data previously submitted as evidence by They who shall not be named , its difficult to see what they can come up with a second time, especially as they didn't even exist for much if the period in question.

 

[paully]

In reality, this is just an exercise to legally confirm the meaning of the previous planning approvals once and for all. They are what they are. Had LCC ( or some lurking within LCC) not been in denial about what is meant, then these CLEUDs wouldn't have neen necessary. Had the future proofing included in the 1994 approval been implemented as intended, then what LBA are seeking to achieve, would have been the norm many moons ago.

Hoisted by their own petard.....or by some of those lurking within the LCC to be a tad more accurate..Still I love the smell of popcorn in morning, as they say.

 

[Finger66]

I suspect they who shall not be named will try to make unfounded comments in the hope it sways things, even though it couldn't be clearer that only factual evidence is permitted. It's just one own goal after another with them and does continue to prove that they don't really have a genuine agenda - just acting as a bunch of NIMBY's, all of which has been said numerous times before. The truth will always out

 

[Snackbar]

I see those who shall not be named have put a response out on X. Interestingly one of the supporters of DSA thought he’d pitch in to lend his support to the anti aviation planks……just how desperate are these folks in Dncaster

 

[White Heather]

I see those who shall not be named have put a response out on X. Interestingly one of the supporters of DSA thought he’d pitch in to lend his support to the anti aviation planks……just how desperate are these folks in Dncaster

They're all bitter and twisted.

 

[JRP]

They're all bitter and twisted.

I just read there statement on X, never known so much bull poo, wish I knew where some of the clowns lived would go rev my bike at 3 in morning outside there house

 

[Aviador]

I just read there statement on X, never known so much bull poo, wish I knew where some of the clowns lived would go rev my bike at 3 in morning outside there house

I thought most of them lived in Lancashire don't they ?

 

[White Heather]

I thought most of them lived in Lancashire don't they ?

Agents for MAN?

They're all gonna really hate it when LBA breezes past the 4m pax.and quite probably sets a new passenger throughput record.

 

[Len Fish]

I see those who shall not be named have put a response out on X. Interestingly one of the supporters of DSA thought he’d pitch in to lend his support to the anti aviation planks……just how desperate are these folks in Dncaster

My reading of their comments is that they have no evidence that can be accepted under the law covering CLEUDs and they’re increasingly miffed that general, usually untrue comments can’t be taken into account to influence the result as has been the case previously. Not even Houdini could escape from this particular straitjacket.

 

[White Heather]

My reading of their comments is that they have no evidence that can be accepted under the law covering CLEUDs and they’re increasingly miffed that general, usually untrue comments can’t be taken into account to influence the result as has been the case previously. Not even Houdini could escape from this particular straitjacket.

They dug their own hole . Let them jump in now. Not the first time they have shot themselves in the foot . Hopefully, that's both feet now and they can hobble off to the dark side closer to the airport they want us all to use. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch frankly.

 

[Len Fish]

And with both feet in the hole I’m sure you’ll help me to fill it with quick drying concrete!

 

[Snackbar]

There is a lot more detail and documentation now on the LCC planning portal re the CLUEDs! Not sure when it was up loaded and by who but suspect the flight records were provided by LBA. https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/

 

[Finger66]

I thought most of them lived in Lancashire don't they ?

Yes that’s correct. A right set of Lankers!

 

[White Heather]

There is a lot more detail and documentation now on the LCC planning portal re the CLUEDs! Not sure when it was up loaded and by who but suspect the flight records were provided by LBA. https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/

Yes it was provided by LBA. Every flight that operated outside hours and which was supposedly breaching rules, has been identified by date, time, aircraft registration, aircraft type and resultant Quota Count. All as proof that these movements go back to 2008 (and beyond) so well over 10 years, the Council knew, and opted not to enforce. As such, in accordance with Planning Law, those movements are no longer enforceable.

 

[Len Fish]

That must have been quite a job for someone to compile those figures going back at least 10 years but well worth it if the outcome is positive for LBA. Provided the data is accurate (and I would think that every care has been taken to ensure it is) there’s very little those who must not be named can do about it.