Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[blotbuc1]

Government guidance on ‘Flexible Options for Planning Permissions’ in respect of section 73 applications states:
‘ Provisions relating to statutory consultation and publicity do not apply. However, local planning authorities have discretion to consider whether the scale or nature of the change warrants consultation, in which case the authority can choose how to inform interested parties.’
After their approach with the CLUED applications I think consultation may well take place!

 

[White Heather]

Government guidance on ‘Flexible Options for Planning Permissions’ in respect of section 73 applications states:
‘ Provisions relating to statutory consultation and publicity do not apply. However, local planning authorities have discretion to consider whether the scale or nature of the change warrants consultation, in which case the authority can choose how to inform interested parties.’
After their approach with the CLUED applications I think consultation may well take place!

I suspect you are right, although informing them and going through the entire planning process with people having to register support or opposition, are two different things, surely?

 

[dmrodgers]

Thank you for sharing WH
Am sure the clown group will be wetting there beds over this
But how can this not be approved? Surely this is what has been discussed in detail with LCC and both parties have come to a agreement on what to do and how to move forward
If they previously approved the altered night hours and now refuse it’s going to make LCC look pretty stupid or even stupider than they currently are

Let’s hope easyJet are ready to occupy the 10 new stands with a base of 10 A320 neos

If by any chance this gets approved, for which there are no reason it to be declined especially the Airport and Council have been working together on this, lets hope the 'clown' group don't appeal to the government which happened with the new environmental friendly terminal, and then it sits for over 12 months on some ministers desk in Whitehall without being looked at hoping its will go away.

 

[White Heather]

If by any chance this gets approved, for which there are no reason it to be declined especially the Airport and Council have been working together on this, lets hope the 'clown' group don't appeal to the government which happened with the new environmental friendly terminal, and then it sits for over 12 months on some ministers desk in Whitehall without being looked at hoping its will go away.

The terminal scheme only went to the Minister because the terminal, and airport, are technically on green belt. As such, the Minister for Housing had to sign it off. It was supposed to be just routine and done within 6 weeks, but we all know what happened, and I for one believe that there was something underhand about it. But that was a major planning application. This isn't and it introduces measures generally adopted at other airports which are CAA and Government policy.

As for Leeds City Council, they must know that if this is rejected, LBA can and probably will take the CLEUD issue to the High Court- something I'm sure the Council are keen to avoid. Let's face it. Expecting an airport to operate under archaic 31 year old restrictions is ridiculous. This is an issue that for everyone's sake, needs sorting with the least fuss and minimal delay.

 

[Aviador]

It is essential that LBA puts something in place which allows the thousands of passengers using the airport to pledge support. The airport must do this as the narrative from GALBA is it is "the people against the airport" which is utter nonsense.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I think this is a fair application which the council needs to take seriously. it brings the airport and the city in line with other airports around the country as well as DFT, CAA and other government policies.

The clowns can go get lost. They are just morons. I hope, seriously hope, this gets approved.

With this in mind - everyone is stating that Jet2 have reduced flying etc. I say this is due to them not quite knowing which airports will have stupid rules (like ours) etc. I believe if this happens, for Summer 2027 Jet2 a321NEO's will be definitely a regular appearance. LBA will for sure encourage that.

 

[Len Fish]

Rightly it seems neither the airport or LCC want to be at loggerheads over this, let alone go down the judicial path yet again. The Council has a duty to both the residents living in the vicinity of LBA and to the airport itself and to the wider area, which this proposal satisfies. The residents get an insulation scheme with quieter aircraft whilst the airport gets a fairer, more competitive night flying scheme in line with other airports whilst West Yorkshire gets a much needed economic boost from the growth that hopefully this will bring. Of course the nameless ones won’t see it this way and no doubt are already sharpening their swords with their legal advisors.

 

[752]

Ironic they restrict LBA so much however at a drop of hat Labour willing to spend millions on a white elephant DSA.. go protest there? go protest at MAN/LGW expansion? targeting a smaller airport that has been there long before its residents its crazy.

A Small group of about 20 losers is protesting expansion being the voice of the region and effect growth/jobs & economy.. go to China/India, the UK is doing great in comparison. wake up.

 

[Aviador]

A Small group of about 20 losers

Yes and as I said in my earlier post, they claim it is they "the people" against the airport. It's the same faces you see all the time in the articles about their cause while the silent majority are the 4.5m passengers flying through the airport each year.

 

[Finger66]

This is certainly one area I do agree with @LBAYORKIE on that to some extent we are letting the minority be the ones that are heard the most. Those of us who support the airport, including users, need to start being more vocal in our support and drown out the "losers"

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Rightly it seems neither the airport or LCC want to be at loggerheads over this, let alone go down the judicial path yet again. The Council has a duty to both the residents living in the vicinity of LBA and to the airport itself and to the wider area, which this proposal satisfies. The residents get an insulation scheme with quieter aircraft whilst the airport gets a fairer, more competitive night flying scheme in line with other airports whilst West Yorkshire gets a much needed economic boost from the growth that hopefully this will bring. Of course the nameless ones won’t see it this way and no doubt are already sharpening their swords with their legal advisors.

The fact is that the airport benefits the whole of Yorkshire, but LCC only take into account the benefits to the LCC area.

This is certainly one area I do agree with @LBAYORKIE on that to some extent we are letting the minority be the ones that are heard the most. Those of us who support the airport, including users, need to start being more vocal in our support and drown out the "losers"

Thanks for the acknowledgement of my argument. We all have a role to play.

 

[HX3]

I’d be disappointed if there is any public consultation when LCC do their review. The move by the airport would bring it in line with government policy, CAA, DfT and all UK airports of any scale. It’s managing the issue that the unmentionables want in a more environmentally friendly way. To open up to consultation would cause delays that would impact the economy, a key Labour government driver. It would add unnecessary cost to the council - hearing and reviewing planning matters costs them cash and resource, so why do it if you don’t have to. As councillors they are elected to make decisions on behalf of the council, within their delegated authority, and in the best interests of council area residents. What bit of that remit, would warrant opening things up unnecessarily. Crack on LCC!

 

[gcoabc1]

Further to the recent information supplied by the Yeadon Councillors, regarding LBA intending to seek a variation to the night planning restrictions, I have just received this directly from LBA. It has been issued to all ACC members so that, together with the released information by Councillors, suggests that its now in the public domain. Anyway, it soon will be. Nevertheless, I would strongly suggest that we read, digest, and say nowt, other than any discussion within our membership.

A key issue to note is that as well as the proposal to switch from the existing movement cap to an overall annual noise exposure limit, supported by a new noise insulation scheme, the proposal also changes night time hours to those sought, and approved by Leeds City Council as part of Project Sky, ie: night time hours change from 2300- 0700 to 2330-0559. This would bring LBA in line with other airports, and the average noise exposure system is stated to be in accordance with CAA and Government policy. It should also be noted, that if implemented, the 31 year old winter/summer night movement limit of 4000 per year would be scrapped completely and the overall noise exposure based on a calendar year.

Anyway, for your information. I'm unsure if this amendment to an existing planning consent counts as a planning application that enables public comment/objection/support or not. Hopefully, not. Otherwise, we will be still waiting for a decision in 6 months. Someone mentioned that the Council needs to respond within 13 weeks, but we've heard that before, haven't we?? (CLEUDs).

It's interesting this action is being taken, following a period of discussions between LBA and LCC planners on the way forward after the CLEUD outcome.
Let's hope this is seen by both parties as the way forward. We know for sure the likely reaction of they who shall not be named.

IF this succeeds, its brilliant. Big IF as ever but the Council have approved these hours before, and only an idiot would seek to prevent the airport attracting the quieter aircraft. The key issue of course, is what is this annual night noise exposure limit and how soon will LBA reach it, if airlines don't upgrade their based aircraft??


Leeds Bradford Airport

S73 Application - Briefing Note

What is proposed and Why

The proposals seek to update planning conditions which control night flights at LBA , via a s73 application of
planning permission P/07/022 0 8/FU.

LBA are currently permitted to operate a capped number of aircraft arrivals and departures during the nighttime
period of 2300 – 0700 hrs. These restrictions are over 30 years old and are therefore significantly outdated ,
presenting no incentive for airlines to modernise their aircraft fleets. They also place LBA at a competitive
disadvantage compared to other UK regional airportsto the detriment of the West Yorkshire economy.

Most UK airports benefit from an operational nighttime period which ends at 0559 hrs. This is due to standard
European flight patterns which dictate that early morning flights are necessary for the efficient operation of airports and the airlines, largely due to the ability to operate return flights in a single day .
The focus of the application is on reducing aircraft noise via a capped noise quota count system over a new
operational night-time period of 2330 – 0559 hrs . Such a system will make LBA compliant with current CAA, DfT
and government policy on aviation and will:
• Constitute a move to limits directly related to noise
• will incentivise the early adoption of quieter, low emission aircraft which the current movement based operational controls do not.
• Replace the existing summer and winter season movements limits (2,800 & 1,200 respectively) with a fixed noise quota count cap that applies annually over the calendar year to all aircraft that arrive and
depart during the 2330 to 0559 nighttime period.

Airlines need to be incentivised to base their most modern, energy efficient and quietest aircraft in locations
where their benefits can be maximised. This will also stimulate greater connectivity and support economic growth in the West Yorkshire Region, whist reducing noise and aircraft emissions.

What are the Benefits of the Proposals?

Social benefits include a reduction in the impact of noise on local communities by the introduction of a new noise
insulation scheme. The changes will also lead to enhanced global and UK connectivity and reduced surface
access journey times, as people will be discouraged from travelling to more distant airports.

Environmental benefits extend to a reduction in greenhouse gases such as CO2, a reduction in air pollution
from particulate matter and lower fuel demands by aircraft.

Economic benefits of the proposals include in excess of 5,500 new jobs, and an increase in economic output for
the West Yorkshire Region from £460m to £940m. As the vast majority of employees that workat LBA live in
West Yorkshire, these economic benefits will directly benefit the West Yorkshire Region.

Reputational benefits will see the West Yorkshire Region become a serious contender on an international scale
helping to attract greater foreign direct investment and local growth funds.

The Planning Balance

LBA are currently operating under significantly outdated restrictions which limit the number of flights during the
nighttime period. These restrictions are out of date with current CAA, DfT and government policy and place LBA
at a competitive disadvantage compared to other UK regional airports.
Passenger demand is forecast to grow and both the government and LCC support growth at LBA , so long as this
is undertaken in a sustainable manner that balances economic success with environmental protection.

Regularising the controls will incentivise airlines to base their most modern, energy efficient, and quietest aircraft
at LBA. This subsequently improves connectivity and supports further economic growth in the West Yorkshire
Region , whilst minimising noise and carbon emission effects.
Doing nothing will fail to attract these quieter and cleaner aircraft, will hinder the ability to achieve the economic
potential of LBA, and delay delivery of the environmental benefits (noise, air quality and carbon emissions).
There are a range of economic, social and environmental benefits that weigh heavily in favour of the proposals.
These will either not materialise or be significantly delayed if the controls are not modernised.

Thank you for sharing this with the Forum.

It is the clearest synopsis I have so far read on the subject and the most clearly and easily understood which normally would make me believe there is a silver lining to this story but find myself a little twitchy because of council involvement.

I really hope I am not being too cynical on this, the rail improvements across the West Yorkshire Region, the general transport improvements, inward and foreign investments but mmmm history is not too positive in it all being delivered.

At my age I hope to see all these things come to fruition and be healthy enough to participate.

I will just have to stay “Frosty” a few decades more.

 

[airforced]

Government guidance on ‘Flexible Options for Planning Permissions’ in respect of section 73 applications states:
‘ Provisions relating to statutory consultation and publicity do not apply. However, local planning authorities have discretion to consider whether the scale or nature of the change warrants consultation, in which case the authority can choose how to inform interested parties.’
After their approach with the CLUED applications I think consultation may well take place!

It is rare for me to feel sorry for businesses as I mostly think that it is up to them to sort their business out and run that business themselves to their stated aims and objectives and sort problems out to enable them to do that. LBA can't do this as things stand and are fighting their corner with one hand tied behind their back because of the way LCC are handling circumstances such as this application. This Government is not helping by by not giving consistent advice and direction equally to ALL Councils. As things stand I feel very sorry for LBA.

It is alright saying that LCC support LBA but there is little outward sign of that except from them SAYING they support LBA. I feel sorry for LBA having to wait to find out, once again, if LCC will support this outdated restriction being changed for the good bringing the "night" movements up to date and fit for purpose in line with modern quieter aircraft and show everyone that they have moved with the times. Their handling of the CLUED applications demonstrate they are much more interested in the noise made by small pressure groups. What a disgusting way for a Council to behave.

Come on LCC and Government show some backbone for a change.

 

[Finger66]

Well said @airforced which I think again proves the point that the minority are speaking the loudest and that is what LCC have previously listened to. This is where the majority now need to rise up and speak louder. isn't that right @LBAYORKIE
I know I can never get to a Community Event as they are never right day and place but if there are no official petitions or documents to sign it's time we all sent emails to LCC in support of LBA. That is all peaceful and above board

 

[Finger66]

Maybe that's part of the majority problem. Because we are a majority there is too much inaction and maybe that is what needs to change so we don't just assume the minority will win

 

[airforced]

Maybe that's part of the majority problem. Because we are a majority there is too much inaction and maybe that is what needs to change so we don't just assume the minority will win

That is a worthy thought and intention Finger66 but I have my doubts that it would do any good as in addition to who can't be mentioned on here, there is the question of the LCC Councilors who hold such views. They maybe in the minority as a whole but it sounds like they are very vociferous where it matters.

I too can't get over to Leeds area because I live too far away and am housebound these days so that puts that sort of idea non viable for me too. Don't know what else to suggest except finding a way to vote them all out of office asap but having said that you wouldn't rely on anything being different as politicians sway with the wind whatever colour they wear

 

[White Heather]

I wrote to Charles Johnson (LBA) yesterday about all this. He has replied and confirmed that there is no requirement for public consultation. Although there was no requirement to do so, they notified the local councillors and now the ACC members so we could spread the word about this, which I have done here. So now, please feel free to inform anyone who you know will be interested, and who preferably, are supportive. You can copy and paste the LBA statement contained within my post about this.

Charles also confirmed that soon, LBA will be releasing a video online, which explains what's happening and why. He is hopeful of a successful outcome. Amen to that!

 

[Snackbar]

I wrote to Charles Johnson (LBA) yesterday about all this. He has replied and confirmed that there is no requirement for public consultation. Although there was no requirement to do so, they notified the local councillors and now the ACC members so we could spread the word about this, which I have done here. So now, please feel free to inform anyone who you know will be interested, and who preferably, are supportive. You can copy and paste the LBA statement contained within my post about this.

Charles also confirmed that soon, LBA will be releasing a video online, which explains what's happening and why. He is hopeful of a successful outcome. Amen to that!

The only influence we have is to write to your local Councillors expressing your support and views on the matter. Whilst some may feel it is a waste of time you can be sure GALBA will be doing just that and also advising each of their followers to do just that - if those are only opinions LCC get to hear you can see why they don’t take an objective view in support of LBA……..The influence of public support on locally elected officials can be clearly seen down the road in Donny!

 

[JRP]

has this change of hours and night restrictions been submitted to the council or is it going in shortly?