Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[YankeeDelta]

Not seen this posted anywhere else but the following appeared on Yeadon City Councillors FB page this morning...

Leeds Bradford airport apply for removal of restrictions on night time flying.

At a public enquiry some years ago a Planning Inspector set a quota for night time flights at Leeds Bradfrod Airport. This was to protect the amenity of residents who live under the flight path.
Recently it was discovered that the airport had been exceeding their quota with extra nighttime flights. They were served with an enforcement notice by the Council requiring them to adhear to their planning permission.
The airports response has been to apply for Certificates of Lawful Development which in effect will exempt 90+% of aircraft from the quota system and allow unlimited night time fights (something no other major airport allows).
This process excludes the public from the decision process as they have no access to the airports arguments and are not allowed to comment on the proposal.

Whatever your views on the airport we believe that the public should not be excluded from expressing a view on the proposal for unlimited night time flying, it is just undemocratic.
We would urge residents to make their views known by e-mailing the Chief Planning Officer David Feeney ([email protected])

The applications

Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm immunity against enforcement of the departure of aircraft with a quota count of 1 pursuant to Condition 4 of permission 07/02208/FU - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that Condition 6(a) and 6(b) of permission 07/02208/FU do not cover aircraft with a quota count of less than 0.5 - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm immunity against enforcement of any prohibition of movements of aircraft with a quota count of 0.25 during the night-time period - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that 'exempt' is defined in Condition 6(e) of permission 07/02208/FU, by reference to the provisions of UK NOTAM S45/1993 (without updates) - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that condition 9 of permission 07/02208/FU allows delayed and emergency flights to land during the night time period regardless of their quota count, and such flights do not count against the cap on night time movements in condition 7. - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU

 

[White Heather]

Not seen this posted anywhere else but the following appeared on Yeadon City Councillors FB page this morning...

Leeds Bradford airport apply for removal of restrictions on night time flying.

At a public enquiry some years ago a Planning Inspector set a quota for night time flights at Leeds Bradfrod Airport. This was to protect the amenity of residents who live under the flight path.
Recently it was discovered that the airport had been exceeding their quota with extra nighttime flights. They were served with an enforcement notice by the Council requiring them to adhear to their planning permission.
The airports response has been to apply for Certificates of Lawful Development which in effect will exempt 90+% of aircraft from the quota system and allow unlimited night time fights (something no other major airport allows).
This process excludes the public from the decision process as they have no access to the airports arguments and are not allowed to comment on the proposal.

Whatever your views on the airport we believe that the public should not be excluded from expressing a view on the proposal for unlimited night time flying, it is just undemocratic.
We would urge residents to make their views known by e-mailing the Chief Planning Officer David Feeney ([email protected])

The applications

Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm immunity against enforcement of the departure of aircraft with a quota count of 1 pursuant to Condition 4 of permission 07/02208/FU - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that Condition 6(a) and 6(b) of permission 07/02208/FU do not cover aircraft with a quota count of less than 0.5 - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm immunity against enforcement of any prohibition of movements of aircraft with a quota count of 0.25 during the night-time period - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that 'exempt' is defined in Condition 6(e) of permission 07/02208/FU, by reference to the provisions of UK NOTAM S45/1993 (without updates) - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU
Certificate of Existing Lawful Development to confirm that condition 9 of permission 07/02208/FU allows delayed and emergency flights to land during the night time period regardless of their quota count, and such flights do not count against the cap on night time movements in condition 7. - Leeds And Bradford Airport Victoria Avenue Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TU

Looks like this is the airports first response to the Councils intransigence regarding MAX and NEO exemption. The Council have brought this on themselves. They've thrown down the gauntlet good and proper and good luck to them.

I don't think the Councillor is being entirely honest with his claims though. The airport appear to be going through a process of legally clarifying what they can, and ultimately cannot do relating to the previous planning conditions. I imagine it forces the Council to address their concerns in a formal manner and if the outcome isn't a good one, enables the airport to appeal.

And, it is not a planning application. It seems to be more about sorting out the differences if opinion as to the meaning if the previous planning application conditions. It's a reasonable assumption that before doing so, the airport have sought and obtained legal advice.

Hopefully this will be something that is covered and clarified by the airport CEO at next week's Airport Consultative Committee.

 

[Len Fish]

This is going to get interesting.

 

[Aviador]

The Yeadon has applied to Leeds City Council for permission to run an unlimited number of supposedly quieter planes to take off and land between 11pm and 7am.

YP

Basically having reviewed the planning submission(s) the airport has requested for "certificates to confirm immunity against enforcement".

 

[lbaspotter]

I see the Yorkshire Post is now on it., Reading between the lines it's a fair article to be honest. It looks like Leeds City Council have a deadline of November 1st 2022 to make a decision and confirms the general public doesn't have any say in it.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/leeds-bradford-airport-applies-for-permission-to-operate-unlimited-night-flights-after-row-over-breaking-restrictions-4336791

 

[Finger66]

The airport are probably going the whole hog here as their opening gambit. The council may then say, well how about we relax to between 2330 and 0630, then the airport how about between 0100 and 0500 and so on until the airport get what they actually need. I would suspect if night time was changed to between 2359 and 0600 and the quota remains the same the airport would be perfectly happy with that and leaves room for further growth, Inc more based aircraft - when we get the stands of course

 

[White Heather]

I tend to agree. What they want is a reasonable approach and some common sense, and a change to outdated restrictions imposed 30 years ago - but without going through a new planning application with all the negative rubbish that brings with it.

I'm sure they will be happy with a sensible compromise, specifically that the newer generation aircraft are exempt - and ideally that delayed flights are exempt generally rather than only until 0030. I guess they are going the whole hog to demonstrate that they are not going to just let this go and are prepared to do what it takes. In the end the future airport growth is dependent on this to a degree at least.

Not sure though how it works and who makes the decision or based on what. I read though that if refused there's a right of appeal - if that's the case this may be the first step along a road that concludes, potentially, in court.

I see the Yorkshire Post is now on it., Reading between the lines it's a fair article to be honest. It looks like Leeds City Council have a deadline of November 1st 2022 to make a decision and confirms the general public doesn't have any say in it.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/transport/leeds-bradford-airport-applies-for-permission-to-operate-unlimited-night-flights-after-row-over-breaking-restrictions-4336791

Yet once again the overriding approach to the article is negative. It starts with negativity, using phrases such as 'supposedly quieter aircraft' (a direct repetition of the words of the Councillor who first reported this) suggesting there's no such thing (whereas they are quieter and that's fact) and the reaction of the group whose acronym I refuse to mention, and only then , almost as an afterthought, put forward the airports reasoning . The article is written in a way to generate a negative reaction and in no way is supportive or balanced. It makes no attempt to offer any positive explanation as to why the existing restrictions are outdated .

It makes my blood boil that that lot are now in a position where they are first port of call for every lazy journalist when writing articles about LBA - yet these same papers report on DSA without ever considering the issues relating to noise,or emissions, as though that airport is in a different world to LBA.

 

[AndyL]

It is important to remember that these applications are completely different from previous ones made by the airport regarding night flights. The airport has applied for five certificates of existing lawful development covering some of the areas specified in the original planning permission for 24 hour operations, including the new quieter jets not being included in the quota on night movements.

An application for a certificate can be made when there has been a breach of planning conditions for ten years. There is no consultation, publication of documents or public planning meetings. The applications are subject to legal tests to determine whether they are lawful. The planning authority has eight weeks to decide whether or not to issue the certificates. Applicants have a right of appeal.

It appears that the airport has taken high-level legal advice and is working closely with the city council.

 

[White Heather]

Lawful development certificates

Explains the process for obtaining a lawful development certificate for existing or proposed use.

www.gov.uk

Well worth a read. It clarifies the process and appeal opportunities and also helps us understand why LBA is doing this.

Firstly, the original planning approval and restrictions are not particularly clear and are open to interpretation, and secondly, it is probable that there are some in the council who for their own agenda, dont want to hear facts about new generation aircraft. So now, the airport are forcing them in a legal manner to consider whatever facts the airport can demonstrate and to make a decision based on those facts, in the knowledge that if they refuse, there's a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and ultimately to the High Court.

No wonder they who shall not be named are unhappy. However, claims that this is undemocratic are sheer nonsense. It's a legal process introduced by a Government elected democratically. Democracy is about allowing an applicant an opportunity to be heard and their application to be dealt with correctly without the interference of a noisy minority whose sole purpose in life is to undermine and (if they could) destroy a business that is vital to the region and the biggest source of employment on this side of Leeds.

 

[paully]

Well done to the airport authorities. They are using legal routes open to them, clearly taking sound legal advice and have shown a clear intention, to Leeds City Council, to call their bluff...There will no doubt be more than a few choking on their proverbial cornflakes this morning...........Good!!

 

[Aviador]

I would hazard a guess a legal challenge now would mean it will publicly come out in the wash that the airport has been breaking the rules since it was in council ownership effectively meaning 10 years has elapsed without it been contested in a court of law.

 

[White Heather]

I would hazard a guess a legal challenge now would mean it will publicly come out in the wash that the airport has been breaking the rules since it was in council ownership effectively meaning 10 years has elapsed without it been contested in a court of law.

Don't think there's any doubt that when under Council ownership they operated summer as May to October - but whether that led to an excess of night flights during that period when operated correctly, I wouldn't know. Either way, if the Council misinterpreted their own planning restrictions, its probably something they would rather not come out in the wash. Certainly the airport and council treated summertime as May to October for a lot more than 10 years .

 

[AirBingley]

I think also it’s really important for the airport to show its customers (and potential customers) that it is taking this issue seriously and this will provide definitive guidelines to airlines and the sort of equipment they need to be using. It’s positive LBA are taking action given we had a number of Wizz diverts in the early summer which will have no doubt been a talking point between the 2 parties. I’m over in Bingley and the late evening Neos are much much quieter that the ATRs to Dublin and Belfast when they pass over my house so a reassessment is long overdue.

 

[Len Fish]

It seems that since the decision to uphold the current restrictions that LBA have been in close contact with the Council. Hopefully this is an agreed way forward to come to an acceptable agreement for both sides, a sensible agreement that cuts out any interference from minority protest groups whose common sense is in short supply.

 

[White Heather]

It seems that since the decision to uphold the current restrictions that LBA have been in close contact with the Council. Hopefully this is an agreed way forward to come to an acceptable agreement for both sides, a sensible agreement that cuts out any interference from minority protest groups whose common sense is in short supply.

Likewise several local Councillors I can think of who are already spreading false messages aimed at whipping up anti airport feeling , and even telling people to write to the Planning Officer to protest that they dont have any say. It's being painted as a planning application with the public excluded. I reality it's a system introduced to enable the applicant to seek clarity relating to a past planning approval and to have their arguments heard legally - particularly useful if you have people in the Council and/or Planning Department who are not listening and have an alternative agenda.

 

[paully]

Aah yes local councillors...The strange breed that takes more notice of constituents who bought their homes under the flightpath, long after such a pathway had been established, simultaneously ignoring those constituents who earn their living from the airport and have done for a long time....
Hey ho..

 

[Aviador]

Aah yes local councillors...The strange breed that takes more notice of constituents

Er no, they only consider their own wants and needs and I am sure their constituents wont even be considered.

 

[HX3]

I think that article is far from balanced, there is an implied tone throughout, that is negative and shows how poor our news providers are nowadays. The airport are rightly seeking clarification on antiquated, ambiguous guidelines. As with any guide rails, compliance is about understanding the wording and the practical application of such rules. The fact the council will have to consider this, as well as precedents set across the aviation sector, not limited to LBA and Leeds city council, clearly has not landed with local councillors and those that shall not be named. This is a very wise move by LBA, the council will have to respond proportionately, and without the clear emotion of certain council members.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Well it will be all over the media soon and not in a positive way. I can see GALBA making a real meal of this and the airport not defending their position.

 

[Statto]

Why wouldn’t they defend their position ?

They are the ones who have instigated this, presumably after months of dialogue with the council beforehand