Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[AndyL]

So today's the day... Or is it... ?

Looking at the Leeds Planning Portal, the updated agreed expiry date for the applications is 8 July!

 

[White Heather]

Looking at the Leeds Planning Portal, the updated agreed expiry date for the applications is 8 July!

Talk about kicking the can down the road!!

 

[LBA4EVER]

Talk about kicking the can down the road!!

Its just a circus aint it, its so unbelievable its just laughable!

 

[Aviador]

When I check this morning it was still showing today so clearly it has just been updated.

Surely the airport must insist a decision is made now. This is ridiculous.

 

[Finger66]

Alternatively a delay to July may suit the airport. That way they cant say they broke any quota limits in 2024 because the required clarification was still outstanding. Probably gives them more clout against LCC

 

[White Heather]

Alternatively a delay to July may suit the airport. That way they cant say they broke any quota limits in 2024 because the required clarification was still outstanding. Probably gives them more clout against LCC

The airport will continue as they have done previously. They've said they are content to wait and the most important thing is the correct outcome (in the airports favour) which to me seems to be the only legally sound outcome having read all the documents . Maybe they'll wait until the General Election and sneak out the answer then, hoping it will be lost in all the election clamour.

 

[Len Fish]

When I check this morning it was still showing today so clearly it has just been updated.

Surely the airport must insist a decision is made now. This is ridiculous.

If the deadline has been extended by LCC as far as I’m aware this has to be with the agreement of the applicant, LBA.

 

[HX3]

Nowt’s ever quick relating to LBA. Hopefully the outcome will be worth the wait

 

[Finger66]

It all suggests the airport aren't stressing about it, that's for sure

 

[Seasider]

I may be missing something here, but how come a decision was to be made in 8 weeks, delayed and now delayed again for 4 months. How much data is there to check?
I think LBA should be pushing for a decision otherwise LCC could turn down the application and LBA have submit to the full quota.
Obviously something is "going on" here to "save face" to either LCC or LBA.

 

[RaabBam]

Applications can be extended if the Local Planning Authority and the applicant agree to extend.

It is not just the Airport that wants the correct decision; so does the Local Planning Authority. The Airport has a right to appeal and a right to claim costs if it believes that the Local Planning Authority has behaved unreasonably (although the latter, I doubt, would happen; the bar is set high).

Judging from how these applications have progressed, both parties have expected this to take some time to resolve. Also, I doubt that the Airport wants to be too pushy over this - especially since they are publishing a masterplan this year and intend (at some point) to submit a planning application for a two-level tier replacing the bus shelter. The Airport has maintained a positive relationship with delegated planning officers and will want this to continue.

 

[Len Fish]

It’s in the interests of both the Council and LBA for any favourable decision to be totally watertight given the furore that will follow from the usual suspects who will look for ways to challenge it. If this means taking their time and going through the applications in minute detail to ensure this is the case I’m certain LBA would go along with this. There’s also the political aspect that there are local elections in May which the Labour Council may want to get out of the way before announcing a controversial decision that no doubt would get full (probably negative) coverage in the press.

 

[White Heather]

Let's face it. If the Council end up approving these applications, a key reason they will do so is their own failure, for more than 10 years, to enforce restrictions they themselves set within the planning approval. They are bound to be criticised by some for that, more so if it's acknowledged that any breaches occurred when the airport was still council owned.

The issues regarding updated NOTAMs which update aircraft types allowed to operate at night relate to what the Council (quite rightly) included in the planning approval. My issue is why they appear to have tried to circumvent that since . It's pretty clear why it's in the approval and the intention behind it, yet the airport are having to submit a CLEUD to enable them to operate in accordance with the latest updated NOTAMs. Again the Council could face criticism , this time from LBA, if it's shown they themselves are stopping the airport from operating in accordance with the planning approval they themselves set.

Either way, the Council are very much in the firing line and it's not the sort of thing they will want to be dealing with ahead of local elections.

 

[Aviador]

It’s in the interests of both the Council and LBA for any favourable decision to be totally watertight given the furore that will follow from the usual suspects who will look for ways to challenge it. If this means taking their time and going through the applications in minute detail to ensure this is the case I’m certain LBA would go along with this. There’s also the political aspect that there are local elections in May which the Labour Council may want to get out of the way before announcing a controversial decision that no doubt would get full (probably negative) coverage in the press.

I thought exactly the same and I did wonder why they were aiming for the 8th March so close to the May elections. Obviously they always intended to extend the deadline.

 

[Seasider]

I understand the point about not wanting to announce before the Local Elections, but July is 2 months after them.
I still don't understand why it is taking so long. Surely, if there is a lot of data to check, then allocate more staff to do it. It is in the interests of LCC and LBA to get this sorted before the main summer period with a lot more night flying. How can LBA plan with their airline partners when they do not know what the rules are? unless LCC/LBA have come to an agreement?
LCC have thwarted the development of LBA for years, are they still trying to do it?
One further question: I know the majority of members think the CLUED's will be approved. But what happens if they are turned down and LBA appeal, can they carry on as the last 20 years or do they have to stick to the old quotas?

I know I can be cynical in my old age, but something is not right here.

 

[RaabBam]

I understand the point about not wanting to announce before the Local Elections, but July is 2 months after them.
I still don't understand why it is taking so long. Surely, if there is a lot of data to check, then allocate more staff to do it. It is in the interests of LCC and LBA to get this sorted before the main summer period with a lot more night flying. How can LBA plan with their airline partners when they do not know what the rules are? unless LCC/LBA have come to an agreement?
LCC have thwarted the development of LBA for years, are they still trying to do it?
One further question: I know the majority of members think the CLUED's will be approved. But what happens if they are turned down and LBA appeal, can they carry on as the last 20 years or do they have to stick to the old quotas?

I know I can be cynical in my old age, but something is not right here.

I would disagree that the Council have thwarted the development of the airport. The Council approved the last proposal for a brand new terminal, the current terminal extension, and the extension before that. The actual professional planners have done their job and applied planning policy correctly. The link road was a shame, but significant upgrades to the A6120 would have been required in conjunction with the link road for it to make a substantial difference. The Council and WYCA also seem committed to bringing mass transit to the airport and establishing an employment hub. I wouldn't be surprised if a new link road is proposed in the future.

However, nearly all Councillors make politically motivated decisions and fundamentally misunderstand or choose intentionally to ignore planning policies. That is where a lot of issues can arise. This is frustrating, along with the Secretary of State seemingly randomly calling planning applications approved at the local level and then taking an age to make a final decision.

Having said all that, hopefully, one doesn't have to eat one's words, and the Council and LBA come to an agreement over these applications.

 

[White Heather]

I would disagree that the Council have thwarted the development of the airport. The Council approved the last proposal for a brand new terminal, the current terminal extension, and the extension before that. The actual professional planners have done their job and applied planning policy correctly. The link road was a shame, but significant upgrades to the A6120 would have been required in conjunction with the link road for it to make a substantial difference. The Council and WYCA also seem committed to bringing mass transit to the airport and establishing an employment hub. I wouldn't be surprised if a new link road is proposed in the future.

However, nearly all Councillors make politically motivated decisions and fundamentally misunderstand or choose intentionally to ignore planning policies. That is where a lot of issues can arise. This is frustrating, along with the Secretary of State seemingly randomly calling planning applications approved at the local level and then taking an age to make a final decision.

Having said all that, hopefully, one doesn't have to eat one's words, and the Council and LBA come to an agreement over these applications.

Absolutely true.

The Council have supported LBA with every single planning application for the last 20 years. Not one has been rejected despite the pressure to do so from the NIMBY fraternity, and their Councillor and MP mates. There is no doubt in my mind that it is individuals within the Council chambers who bring pressure to bear on the planning officers to prevent the implementation of changes which they see as likely to increase night flying and reduce their chances of re-election.

As a voter, it incenses me that these Councillors and MPs oppose the airport and never, ever, bother to find out what the majority of their constituents actually think. Every single one that's ever knocked on my door, irrespective of their party, has opposed the airport, and even now, their leaflets state they will fight the airports attempts to increase night flying, disregarding the fact that the CLEUDs are a legal matter in which they have absolutely no say or influence . If they do know that to be the case, then they are blatantly misleading the voters. Some might call them liars.

 

[ls27]

Having spent over 45 years in Local Government, these officers should bear in mind, something I was told when I started work in the late 50s, is that you work without fear or faviour, puts you under pressure sometimes, but you get over that, and are the stronger for that.

 

[Jetchaser]

Just being reported that 2 of the CLEUDS have been rejected by LCC. What does this mean?

 

[White Heather]

Just being reported that 2 of the CLEUDS have been rejected by LCC. What does this mean?

Without knowing which two, impossible to say. It's quite likely to mean an appeal though depending on which two are rejected, which are accepted and how that impacts on the airports operations. Frankly, having seen the submissions and the evidence, I'm amazed they could find any way to reject any. But rejecting 2 of 4 sounds very much like a compromise to me.