Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[Statto]

The ones they have refused are the 2 relating to interpretation of the original planning conditions. One was whether delayed aircraft landing after 1am should count towards the movement limit and the other was about whether modern quieter aircraft should count. The council‘s legal team have basically said there is a common sense interpretation of the planning rules that were set up at the time, so yes, delayed flights count and quieter aircraft count. The two remaining ones are the ones relating to the continuous 10 year breaches which i guess are more fact based as opposed to legal interpretations of the original planning conditions.

 

[White Heather]

The ones they have refused are the 2 relating to interpretation of the original planning conditions. One was whether delayed aircraft landing after 1am should count towards the movement limit and the other was about whether modern quieter aircraft should count. The council‘s legal team have basically said there is a common sense interpretation of the planning rules that were set up at the time, so yes, delayed flights count and quieter aircraft count. The two remaining ones are the ones relating to the continuous 10 year breaches which i guess are more fact based as opposed to legal interpretations of the original planning conditions.

It was always likely the council would try to avoid allowing the new generation aircraft in without counting. And that's the one that the group that shall not be named will be most focussed on, but the previous planning approval clearly refers to updated NOTAMS relating to aircraft quota counts, so refusing to implement this may well bring about an appeal. Ultimately though, it's going to be about whether the airport think that the two rejections will prevent growth or whether they are content to settle for what they have got. Maybe we will gain a clue at next week's Consultative Meeting.

 

[Jetchaser]

On the West Park and Weetwood community page....no surprise there!

Log in or sign up to view

See posts, photos and more on Facebook.

www.facebook.com

 

[HX3]

Surely the CLEUD uses precedents set by other airports, so if new gen aircraft don’t count elsewhere and that is deemed acceptable, how can LCC state that they do here? LBA were maybe too lenient in not insisting that they stick to timescales, they may regret allowing LCC extra extensions to review periods. Hopefully LBA will appeal if the decisions are not in their favour.

I find it ridiculous one council does all it can to block a functioning profitable privately funded airport, yet SY want to throw everything, including public finances at a failed venture.

 

[Snackbar]

I’d have thought the 10 years continuous breach is the key one?? If it’s found LCC have failed to enforce the planning conditions I’m not sure the decisions on the previous two make much difference?

 

[White Heather]

I’d have thought the 10 years continuous breach is the key one?? If it’s found LCC have failed to enforce the planning conditions I’m not sure the decisions on the previous two make much difference?

Yes I would agree. Even if the quiet aircraft count towards the night flying quota, can the airport be held to account by the Council if they breach the limits? If that's the case, then the limits become somewhat academic surely?

We really need to see what's agreed, what's not, the implications and the airports intentions.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Yes I would agree. Even if the quiet aircraft count towards the night flying quota, it would seem that the airport can no longer be held to account by the Council if they breach the limits because the Council never enforced it for over 10 years. If that's the case, then the limits become somewhat academic surely?

Would the airport be allowed to continue not counting the quieter aircraft between now and the result of any appeal being known?

 

[White Heather]

Would the airport be allowed to continue not counting the quieter aircraft between now and the result of any appeal being known?

I dont know. I'm unsure if the councils decision is implemented immediately irrespective of any potential appeal or if an appeal maintains the status quo, which is that they disagree, with the council counting them and the airport not. So far, there's nothing in the news about this that clarified the decisions taken (assuming they have) or the implications..

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I'm sure someone will raise the matter at the ACC, if the airports spokesperson doesn't mention it first.

 

[White Heather]

I'm sure someone will raise the matter at the ACC, if the airports spokesperson doesn't mention it first.

I'm sure that person would be me, if nobody else does, although I'm sure Vince Hodder would include it in his update, assuming these reports are correct.

What I wouldn't assume though is a definitive view on what the airport will do next. It may be that their first response to the Council's decision would be to seek legal advice from the people who have been leading them through this. They will undoubtedly want to crawl all over the decision and reasons behind it, to see if there are grounds to challenge it, unless of course the decision has previously been discussed and accepted as a good compromise which both parties can live with..

Interesting times ahead!

 

[Len Fish]

So we could be in the position where the Council count the quieter aircraft, LBA do not but legally the Council can’t do anything about it because of the precedent set. I suppose that allows the Council to save some face by showing they oppose the applications but their hands are tied. Crazy? Indeed but about right for the saga that is LBA!

 

[White Heather]

So we could be in the position where the Council count the quieter aircraft, LBA do not but legally the Council can’t do anything about it because of the precedent set. I suppose that allows the Council to save some face by showing they oppose the applications but their hands are tied. Crazy? Indeed but about right for the saga that is LBA!

Maybe, but it's all got so complex it's hard to know what the outcome might be. I guess we need to actually see the formal outcome and wait to see what LBA decide to do. We all know what they who shall not be named will say.....

 

[LBA4EVER]

Maybe, but it's all got so complex it's hard to know what the outcome might be. I guess we need to actually see the formal outcome and wait to see what LBA decide to do. We all know what they who shall not be named will say.....

When will we see the formal outcome? Seriously im gettting a bit lost with it all!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

When will we see the formal outcome? Seriously im gettting a bit lost with it all!

It will be interesting if the slots for Summer have been allocated on the basis of the airports interpretation and the council requires implementation based on theirs before the end of the season.

 

[White Heather]

The airport are still currently not counting QC 0.25 aircraft against their night movement allocation. I know this because there is a table showing night movements with the agenda for next week's meeting.

The Council's interpretation makes no sense as in effect, movements under their rules would be limited even if the aircraft was totally silent . They are still trying to force the airport to operate under 1990s rules whilst other airports move on.

https://www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/new...ort-broke-night-flight-rules-no-action-taken/.

According to this, the remaining two CLEUDS have not yet been determined, so it's possible all 4 will be rejected. How, I've no idea as they are the ones relating to immunity from action due to the councils own failures. As you will see, the council have confirmed that the airport broke the rules (entirely because they are counting all aircraft types whereas the airport are not), BUT they are taking no action, allegedly because the cost of doing so far exceeds the maximum fine, which in reality, is peanuts. It could it be they are taking no action because they know they have been caught out by the other two CLEUDS and are no longer in a position to take enforcement action?

It's clear LBA will now be considering their next steps. Personally, I hope they take it all the way through the appeals process, because I'm sick to death of our whining council and even more so of the group they shall not be named.

 

[Statto]

The airport are still currently not counting QC 0.25 aircraft against their night movement allocation. I know this because there is a table showing night movements with the agenda for next week's meeting.

The Council's interpretation makes no sense as in effect, movements under their rules would be limited even if the aircraft was totally silent . They are still trying to force the airport to operate under 1990s rules whilst other airports move on.

What's obvious from the data the airport have submitted is that QC 0.25 aircraft have been operating at night for a long time; in fact there were nearly 7,500 QC 0.25 movements between 2008 and 2019. The 10 year rule applies when a planning condition has been breached continuously for 10 years and the council have failed to enforce it. So the airport want clarity that QC 0.25 aircraft are allowed to operate between 23:00 and 07:00, that looks like an open and shut case. And the ruling on the other CLUED seems to back that up too.

But if the airport are hoping to have 0.25 aircraft exempt from the night movement limit, I guess they will have to prove that QC 0.25 aircraft have not been counted in the night movements for 10 years. Looking at the submission, I'm not even sure that's what they're asking for.

 

[Hendi]

Well that's a bit of a kick in the teeth I wonder if it's possible a deal has been made in regards to refusing the clueds and the airport been allowed to adjust the night time hours in line with other airports? Which is what they wanted to with the new terminal planning, not sure if that would require a plannjng app or not. I guess time will tell. Its all a bit messy

 

[LBAYORKIE]

BBC News - No action over Leeds Bradford Airport night flight breaches

No action over Leeds Bradford Airport night flight breaches

Leeds City Council will not prosecute Leeds Bradford Airport, despite too many summer night flights.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[The Pole]

Spencer Stokes! I'll leave it there

 

[White Heather]

Spencer Stokes! I'll leave it there

Once again he gives 'them' airtime. The guy does my head in. The report felt like it was presented from the point of view of an irate Horsforth anti airport resident rather than as a balanced piece of journalism.