Future Infrastructure Developments

[Bigman]

Honestly, talk about a region going three sheets to hell in a s@*t shaped hand cart. Yeadon Town Hall, Yeadon Sailing Centre, Ellar Ghyll waste site in Otley, Chippindale Pool in Otley all likely to close. Otley Civic Centre being sold off and MP’s and Councillors dead set against job and wealth creation at the airport just to pander to a few NIMBYs. Sad, sad times.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

This is an ideal opportunity for LBA to make a difference by supporting the Chippindale pool and the town hall or even sailing club. Not sure about Otley tip though!

They could do with some good PR in the areas around the airport.

 

[Aviador]

Some of the final reports are being uploaded to the council portal.

Noise summary -
"The effect of aircraft noise from the proposals is at an acceptable level, and not considered by your officers to be
at a level to warrant a reason to object"

Climate summary -
"The development will not undermine LCC’s Carbon Reduction Roadmap, nor its ability to
meets its net zero commitments."

So basically the council are recommending the new terminal gets full permission.

It now rests on Councillors to make the final decision.

 

[White Heather]

If they do reject despite a recommendation to approve (being under the thumb of the 5 Labour MPs and GALBA and ER), and if LBA appeal following the lead set by Bristol, then winning that appeal is likely, and if they do, then I imagine LCC will be left red faced and having to pay all costs? Rejecting a development when there are no grounds to do so is difficult to defend, especially when you previously approved the expansion in passenger throughput under 2 years ago, and in reality are rejecting a new carbon neutral terminal that will match the best in the world in that respect.

Let's see now if our beloved councillors on the plans panel have the bottle to stand up to their buddies in Westminster and approve this, now the planning officers recommendations appear to be pulling the rug from under their feet by rubbishing their key grounds for rejection.

I cannot help wondering either how they can scrap the Leeds charging zone for traffic on one hand and then reject the terminal because all those naughty aeroplanes will add to the pollution. To me it seems they have painted themselves into a corner and have to approve or face the likelihood of being dragged through the courts and made to look what they probably are - incompetent at best.

 

[Coathanger16]

previously approved the expansion in passenger throughput under 2 years ago

Has the makeup of the council changed since then?

 

[Wardair166]

I totally agree WH. This is an important supporting report which will undoubtedly prove extremely useful in the event of an appeal. I really do hope LCC treat this with the respect it deserves and see sense, assuming their IQ allows it!!!

 

[White Heather]

Has the makeup of the council changed since then?

No. Same plans panel, which makes it even stranger that they had no problem approving the terminal extension but they do with something much better. All of which suggests knobbled by MPs who oppose on political grounds.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

If they do reject despite a recommendation to approve (being under the thumb of the 5 Labour MPs and GALBA and ER), and if LBA appeal following the lead set by Bristol, then winning that appeal is likely, and if they do, then I imagine LCC will be left red faced and having to pay all costs?

I'm not a planning expert or planning lawyer but I understand it's a possibility. The North Somerset unitary authority planning committee that rejected BRS's planning application against the recommendations of its own planning officers was warned by the senior planning officer at the planning committee meeting that a rejection might leave the council having to pay all the costs in the event of an appeal.

Since then there have been regular pleas in the local news media from representatives of the airport expansion opposition groups saying that, apart from going against a locally-made decision and increasing the effects of climate change, the BRS appeal might cause the small North Somerset unitary authority serious financial harm and therefore the appeal should be discontinued. BRS's main opposition group is as well organised and as parsimonious with the truth as GALBA with its arguments, and is as much in the local news media spotlight.

I've looked at the web portal of the relevant government department and find that a local authority could be ordered by the planning inspector or the secretary of state (if the minister takes the final decision on the appeal) to pay all the appeal costs for the following reasons, all of which have to be met:

(i) the application for costs has been made at the appropriate stage
(ii) the local authority acted 'unreasonably'
(iii) the 'unreasonable' behaviour has caused the applicant for costs (ie the airport) to incur or waste expense unnecessarily

An example of what might be considered unreasonable is given as a local authority being unable to produce evidence to support each of its reasons for refusing planning permission, or of imposing a condition on a grant of planning permission.

Do I understand that the LCC planning officers have formally recommended approval of the airport's planning application?

 

[White Heather]

I'm not a planning expert or planning lawyer but I understand it's a possibility. The North Somerset unitary authority planning committee that rejected BRS's planning application against the recommendations of its own planning officers was warned by the senior planning officer at the planning committee meeting that a rejection might leave the council having to pay all the costs in the event of an appeal.

Since then there have been regular pleas in the local news media from representatives of the airport expansion opposition groups saying that, apart from going against a locally-made decision and increasing the effects of climate change, the BRS appeal might cause the small North Somerset unitary authority serious financial harm and therefore the appeal should be discontinued. BRS's main opposition group is as well organised and as parsimonious with the truth as GALBA with its arguments, and is as much in the local news media spotlight.

I've looked at the web portal of the relevant government department and find that a local authority could be ordered by the planning inspector or the secretary of state (if the minister takes the final decision on the appeal) to pay all the appeal costs for the following reasons, all of which have to be met:

(i) the application for costs has been made at the appropriate stage
(ii) the local authority acted 'unreasonably'
(iii) the 'unreasonable' behaviour has caused the applicant for costs (ie the airport) to incur or waste expense unnecessarily

An example of what might be considered unreasonable is given as a local authority being unable to produce evidence to support each of its reasons for refusing planning permission, or of imposing a condition on a grant of planning permission.

Do I understand that the LCC planning officers have formally recommended approval of the airport's planning application?

Not yet, but it's looking like they might do given they appear to have effectively countered the two main alleged justifications for refusal - noise and CO2 emissions (based on the post by Aviador, who has read the latest reports from the planning Officer on the portal).

 

[LBA787]

Do we know when the decision will be announced?

 

[White Heather]

Do we know when the decision will be announced?

No.

 

[752]

Sure what Aviador stated above:

Noise summary -
"The effect of aircraft noise from the proposals is at an acceptable level, and not considered by your officers to be
at a level to warrant a reason to object"

Climate summary -
"The development will not undermine LCC’s Carbon Reduction Roadmap, nor its ability to
meets its net zero commitments."

So basically the council are recommending the new terminal gets full permission.

this is great/positive news.. (defo not to get any hopes yet) but a step in right direction.

so if the council are recommending it.. why is the decision down to 5 councillors? (not sure how the whole process does work) and if they go against the councils recommendations, they will look like total idiots and could the council over turn the decision?

 

[LBA787]

No.

Ok thanks.

 

[gcoabc1]

I have just checked on LCC Planning Committee dates and it seems like 19 November 2020 is the next meeting but the agenda will not be released until the week commencing 12 November. Could this be the meeting we have been waiting for?. Anyone got a heads up on this?

 

[Hendi]

Not sure i hope so I was looking through the important dates section on the portal earlier and noticed it says agreed expiry date 30th of November. Does anybody know what this means? Is it expiry of the whole planning application?

 

[flyboy]

Not sure i hope so I was looking through the important dates section on the portal earlier and noticed it says agreed expiry date 30th of November. Does anybody know what this means? Is it expiry of the whole planning application?

When a planning application is submitted it has to be determined by the planning authority and a decision made within a set time limit, usually 8 weeks, or 13 weeks for more major proposals, or 16 weeks where an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. This is known as the Statutory Expiry Date but, in more complex cases, this date can be extended by agreement between the parties. The date on the planning portal is therefore probably the date agreed between the council and the airport by which the application has to be decided.
If the planning authority does not come to a decision by that date, the applicant can appeal to the government Planning Inspectorate (and ultimately to the Secretary of State) on the grounds of Non-Determination. If it were to go to the SoS it could be a very long drawn out procedure so it would probably first be referred back to the authority to negotiate a settlement and come to a decision. Failing that, or in more controversial cases, the application could be "called in" by the Planning Inspector, who would then make the decision or refer it to the SoS.
From what you say it says on the portal, I would imagine that a decision would need to be made by the council at next week's meeting.

 

[Len Fish]

Not sure i hope so I was looking through the important dates section on the portal earlier and noticed it says agreed expiry date 30th of November. Does anybody know what this means? Is it expiry of the whole planning application?

Once the expiry date is reached the price is reduced and it gets dumped in that supermarket trolley with all the dented tins of baked beans!

 

[Hendi]

When a planning application is submitted it has to be determined by the planning authority and a decision made within a set time limit, usually 8 weeks, or 13 weeks for more major proposals, or 16 weeks where an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. This is known as the Statutory Expiry Date but, in more complex cases, this date can be extended by agreement between the parties. The date on the planning portal is therefore probably the date agreed between the council and the airport by which the application has to be decided.
If the planning authority does not come to a decision by that date, the applicant can appeal to the government Planning Inspectorate (and ultimately to the Secretary of State) on the grounds of Non-Determination. If it were to go to the SoS it could be a very long drawn out procedure so it would probably first be referred back to the authority to negotiate a settlement and come to a decision. Failing that, or in more controversial cases, the application could be "called in" by the Planning Inspector, who would then make the decision or refer it to the SoS.
From what you say it says on the portal, I would imagine that a decision would need to be made by the council at next week's meeting.

Thanks for clearing that up flyboy was not sure how it worked and the consequences of reaching the date with no decision.

 

[LBA4EVER]

so its looking very likely to be next week!

 

[Aviador]

I will be away from the forum on that day, possibly probably drowning my sorrows.