Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[Snackbar]

Fortunately I don't, but given the actual facts have been repeatedly given at the ACC, he has no excuse for issuing stuff like this. I mean, what is he even saying??

No idea….he is usually carping about the ACC changes and the rerouting of traffic away from Burley…His website says it all….talk about NIMBYISM!,

 

[White Heather]

No idea….he is usually carping about the ACC changes and the rerouting of traffic away from Burley…His website says it all….talk about NIMBYISM!,

I am afraid its always been a Menston thing going back to the days of LACAN, whose ' leader' lived there.

 

[Aviador]

I am afraid its always been a Menston thing going back to the days of LACAN, whose ' leader' lived there.

Surely they have bigger fish to fry these days in Menston with all the house building and associated flood risk. These people drive me mad.

 

[Len Fish]

Total incomprehensible gobbledygook that just adds further confusion.

 

[White Heather]

Surely they have bigger fish to fry these days in Menston with all the house building and associated flood risk. These people drive me mad.

The representatives for Menston on the ACC have generally had a very negative attitude towards LBA (with one or two exceptions) throughout my time on the ACC.

 

[gcoabc1]

The representatives for Menston on the ACC have generally had a very negative attitude towards LBA (with one or two exceptions) throughout my time on the ACC.

He might well have been speaking Klingon for all I understood of it.

 

[Len Fish]

The Klingons would have had all this sorted years ago!

 

[Snackbar]

Just picked this up on local FP page

Airports CLEUD* application - decision made

We’ve pasted the full decision made by the Planning Authority below but here’s the summary.

Unlimited night flights asked for by the airport have been turned down:

- the airport previously applied for CLEUDs, these were turned down by the council. The airport appealed this, the Planning Inspectorate agreed with the council but also found that some of the quieter types of aircraft that the council had been treating as contributing to the cap were in fact not allowed under the planning conditions
- so the airport put in a CLEUD, basically saying that since they’ve been running this type for 10+ years without permission they should be able to do so on an unlimited basis
- the councils decision today disagrees with this but does agree that a certain number (941 per year) should be allowed because that’s in line with the minimum per year the airport had been flying
- at the same time the council has unilaterally approved that type of aircraft so that any night flights over and above the 941 will contribute to their overall cap
- this creates a baseline for enforcement. Since 2023 the council has been receiving monthly flight numbers and we have asked and had it confirmed that enforcement action will be taken if a breach is made at the end of the current British Summer Time season (ends 31st October, the flight cap is measured by season: winter and summer)

This is a really complex issue, we are happy to answer questions - please email us so we can track these and answer in full!

Full decision and press release:

“This is to let you know that the Local Planning Authority have determined the CLEUD application at the airport this afternoon, confirming up to 941 additional aircraft movements per year that are immune from enforcement and deemed lawful, which will not count towards the airport’s summer and winter caps. This means LBA’s application for unlimited flights has in effect been refused.

In parallel, approval of the same aircraft type (under condition 6(C) of the 2007 planning permission, which caps the total number of nighttime movements) will ensure all movements over and above 941 per year will operate within the cap.
Together, this would establish a clear baseline consistent with the 2007 planning permission.

Below is a reactive press release which has also been prepared

A spokesperson for Leeds City Council said: “The council, acting as the local planning authority for Leeds, has determined a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) application submitted by Leeds Bradford Airport.

“This provides increased clarity on the airport’s operation regarding night-time flight numbers, which we are aware is a matter of local interest.

“The council has approved and confirmed as lawful up to 941 additional night‑time aircraft movements per year by quieter aircraft, a figure which is in line with movement numbers previously operated by the airport. This decision is based on UK planning law and an assessment of the airport’s flight records over a 10-year period.

“Leeds Bradford Airport had asked the council to confirm that unlimited flights by these quieter aircraft during the night‑time were lawful. The council did not agree to this.

“The 941 newly confirmed movements are in addition to the existing limits on night‑time flights at the airport, which were established in a 2007 planning permission and are capped at 2,800 movements during British Summer Time and 1,200 during the winter season. Any additional night-time movements above the 941 figure will count towards these caps. “

Notes to editors:

The Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLUED) was determined following a formal call for evidence by the council. All flight data submitted by third parties was independently verified by the council and external sources.

References to ‘quieter aircraft’ mean aircraft with a certified noise level of less than 87 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Decibel).

Under a condition of Leeds Bradford Airport’s planning permission in 2007, the night-time period is defined as 23:00 to 07:00.

Any aircraft movements above the total capped movements would constitute a breach of planning permission and could be subject to enforcement action”

*a CLEUD is a legalistic planning application allowed under national planning law which says: if a breach of planning conditions can be shown to have happened continuously for 10* years then it must be allowed to continue. It’s not something the public can comment on, it’s a purely factual application. The airport has put in several CLEUDs over the last few years

More also here https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.../leeds-bradford-airport-clued-outcome-8543837

 

[SierraHotel]

Leeds Bradford Airport found to be fully compliant with night flight restrictions after CLUED outcome​

Published 13th May 202

“This decision provides much-needed certainty”

​

Leeds Bradford Airport has been found to be fully compliant with night flight restrictions.
The ruling comes after the Yeadon-based airport’s application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) in relation to the operation of night flights.


While providing clarity on the airport’s operation, the decision also confirms that LBA did not breach the movement limits governing night flights during the 2023, 2024, and 2025 periods.

Leeds Bradford Airport has been found to be fully compliant with night flight restrictions. | Tony Johnson

A spokesperson for Leeds Bradford Airport said: “We are pleased with the decision by Leeds City Council, which confirms our long-held position that LBA has operated responsibly and in full compliance with night flight regulations over the last three years. This decision provides much-needed certainty for our partners, our passengers, and the local community.




“LBA remains committed to being a responsible neighbour while continuing to serve as a vital economic gateway for the region. We look forward to continuing our constructive work with Leeds City Council to develop a sustainable long-term framework for flights that balances the region’s connectivity needs with our environmental and local commitments.”
Sign up to our Whatsapp Channel for the latest across Leeds
The outcome further validates the airport’s rigorous internal monitoring systems and its commitment to operating within the framework of its established planning conditions.


As part of its Together for Tomorrow strategy, LBA continues to work with airlines to deploy the latest generation of quieter, more fuel-efficient aircraft as part of its ongoing effort to modernise operations and reduce the noise footprint of its flight schedule

 

[Snackbar]

Just picked this up on local FP page

Airports CLEUD* application - decision made

We’ve pasted the full decision made by the Planning Authority below but here’s the summary.

Unlimited night flights asked for by the airport have been turned down:

- the airport previously applied for CLEUDs, these were turned down by the council. The airport appealed this, the Planning Inspectorate agreed with the council but also found that some of the quieter types of aircraft that the council had been treating as contributing to the cap were in fact not allowed under the planning conditions
- so the airport put in a CLEUD, basically saying that since they’ve been running this type for 10+ years without permission they should be able to do so on an unlimited basis
- the councils decision today disagrees with this but does agree that a certain number (941 per year) should be allowed because that’s in line with the minimum per year the airport had been flying
- at the same time the council has unilaterally approved that type of aircraft so that any night flights over and above the 941 will contribute to their overall cap
- this creates a baseline for enforcement. Since 2023 the council has been receiving monthly flight numbers and we have asked and had it confirmed that enforcement action will be taken if a breach is made at the end of the current British Summer Time season (ends 31st October, the flight cap is measured by season: winter and summer)

This is a really complex issue, we are happy to answer questions - please email us so we can track these and answer in full!

Full decision and press release:

“This is to let you know that the Local Planning Authority have determined the CLEUD application at the airport this afternoon, confirming up to 941 additional aircraft movements per year that are immune from enforcement and deemed lawful, which will not count towards the airport’s summer and winter caps. This means LBA’s application for unlimited flights has in effect been refused.

In parallel, approval of the same aircraft type (under condition 6(C) of the 2007 planning permission, which caps the total number of nighttime movements) will ensure all movements over and above 941 per year will operate within the cap.
Together, this would establish a clear baseline consistent with the 2007 planning permission.

Below is a reactive press release which has also been prepared

A spokesperson for Leeds City Council said: “The council, acting as the local planning authority for Leeds, has determined a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) application submitted by Leeds Bradford Airport.

“This provides increased clarity on the airport’s operation regarding night-time flight numbers, which we are aware is a matter of local interest.

“The council has approved and confirmed as lawful up to 941 additional night‑time aircraft movements per year by quieter aircraft, a figure which is in line with movement numbers previously operated by the airport. This decision is based on UK planning law and an assessment of the airport’s flight records over a 10-year period.

“Leeds Bradford Airport had asked the council to confirm that unlimited flights by these quieter aircraft during the night‑time were lawful. The council did not agree to this.

“The 941 newly confirmed movements are in addition to the existing limits on night‑time flights at the airport, which were established in a 2007 planning permission and are capped at 2,800 movements during British Summer Time and 1,200 during the winter season. Any additional night-time movements above the 941 figure will count towards these caps. “

Notes to editors:

The Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLUED) was determined following a formal call for evidence by the council. All flight data submitted by third parties was independently verified by the council and external sources.

References to ‘quieter aircraft’ mean aircraft with a certified noise level of less than 87 EPNdB (Effective Perceived Noise Decibel).

Under a condition of Leeds Bradford Airport’s planning permission in 2007, the night-time period is defined as 23:00 to 07:00.

Any aircraft movements above the total capped movements would constitute a breach of planning permission and could be subject to enforcement action”

*a CLEUD is a legalistic planning application allowed under national planning law which says: if a breach of planning conditions can be shown to have happened continuously for 10* years then it must be allowed to continue. It’s not something the public can comment on, it’s a purely factual application. The airport has put in several CLEUDs over the last few years

More also here https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.../leeds-bradford-airport-clued-outcome-8543837

Seems the airport now have an extra 900 plus movements but will that be enough going forward?

“The 941 newly confirmed movements are in addition to the existing limits on night‑time flights at the airport, which were established in a 2007 planning permission and are capped at 2,800 movements during British Summer Time and 1,200 during the winter season. Any additional night-time movements above the 941 figure will count towards these caps. “

 

[SierraHotel]

I guess as a well known supermarket claims; "Every little helps".

Source: Ilkley Gazette https://share.google/2GPKBcfTTGF63WGAi

 

[White Heather]

It's rarely an issue in winter and an additional 941 is not insignificant if they are able to be used in summer. That's 941 extra night movements operated by the MAX or NEO or E195-2 aircraft. I certainly takes pressure off and LBA seem happy. I have had an email from them stating this is a positive outcome. It certainly isn't a victory for they who shall not be named although knowing them, they will probably try to claim it is.

 

[Snackbar]

It's rarely an issue in winter and an additional 941 is not insignificant if they are able to be used in summer. That's 941 extra night movements operated by the MAX or NEO or E195-2 aircraft. I certainly takes pressure off and LBA seem happy. I have had an email from them stating this is a positive outcome. It certainly isn't a victory for they who shall not be named although knowing them, they will probably try to claim it is.

Seem to remember they were previously accused of breaching the limit by 747 flights by the bedroom spreadsheet guy in Horsforth. This being the case it gives them just short of 200 extra slots - one in the eye for him and his mates!

 

[SierraHotel]

Assuming the 941 per annum will be predominantly arrivals, if is indeed a reasonable uplift.

 

[Speedbird1]

I’d argue that it’s not a hugely positive outcome. An extra 200 movements would equate to growth of 38k seats on a 737-800.

I assume that even though they have the extra movements available as a new baseline, the interpretation is basically all movements count, even stupidly by the quieter aircraft.

It’s certainly not going to help attract an easyJet base or even more based aircraft with Jet2 or Ryanair. It enables the airport to continue to operate at its current limits without being subject to breach conditions.

I can foresee another planning application having to go in and that the airport are spinning this as them being proven to have not breached to set the tone for that application going in.

 

[SierraHotel]

An extra 200 movements??

 

[White Heather]

I’d argue that it’s not a hugely positive outcome. An extra 200 movements would equate to growth of 38k seats on a 737-800.

I assume that even though they have the extra movements available as a new baseline, the interpretation is basically all movements count, even stupidly by the quieter aircraft.

It’s certainly not going to help attract an easyJet base or even more based aircraft with Jet2 or Ryanair. It enables the airport to continue to operate at its current limits without being subject to breach conditions.

I can foresee another planning application having to go in and that the airport are spinning this as them being proven to have not breached to set the tone for that application going in.

Well LBA dont seem to agree with you ! They wrote to me today saying its a positive outcome and the press releases say these 941 do not count towards the night movement limit. From movement 942 on, they do. The local MPs state this could amount to 941 additional movements. Bear in mind too that these new generation aircraft were technically illegal operating at night. Now, they are effectively legal and immune from enforcement.

As for G****A, they moan and complain about night movements, pushing LBA into the CLEUD action, and the outcome is an extra 941 flights at night on top of the existing 4000 per year. Well done! That went well.

 

[Snackbar]

An extra 200 movements??

The 200 was just my quick calculation based upon what g****BA claimed LBA had exceeded their previous night time quota by….Suspect the devil is really in the detail on this one….If LBA are happy with it that’s all good. They are the ones who liaise daily with their airline partners and dictate the airport strategy.

We all know at some point a point another planning application will be needed and it’s better to try and keep LCC on board!

Meanwhile - Oh dear, how sad, never mind https://www.galba.uk/news-updates/n...mean-planes-are-exempt-from-night-flight-cap/

 

[HX3]

Well this is a positive and possibly the best result possible in that it is still linked to archaic 2007 permissions. However, still having a cap rather than more pragmatic measuring such as at Liverpool, still place LBA at a disadvantage.
I would fully expect a fresh planning request from the airport, but at least this will be the new start point.

 

[Finger66]

Seem to remember they were previously accused of breaching the limit by 747 flights by the bedroom spreadsheet guy in Horsforth. This being the case it gives them just short of 200 extra slots - one in the eye for him and his mates!

Maybe he should have asked the co-pilot