Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[LBAYORKIE]

The public enquiry is slated for 11 March 2025 so not so long to wait. Of course this could then to a judicial review!
At the end of the day by forcing a public enquiry it’s now been taken out of the Clowncials hands….

Public Enquiry?

 

[White Heather]

I hope I'm way off the mark with this but the longer this seems to go on and on I'm getting more and more worried that this will not be a happy ending for the airport knowing how the anti airport brigade at Leeds City Council works. I understand from previous comments on here that the airport will appeal the outcome if it goes against them, however this will no doubt go backwards and forwards for another 12 months plus with each side stating there point of view. All this at a time when two another Labour councils are pumping millions into supporting their airports.

This has already gone beyond that stage. The Council have rejected all but one CLEUD and LBA fully expect they will reject the last, if they ever get around to it, so have already notified them of their intention to appeal the 3 refusals and also the 4th on the grounds of non determination. Once it goes to appeal, it's a legal matter and neither the Council nor airport will be able to do anything other than state their argument.thriugh their legal submission. LBA always anticipated this and the key reason for going down the CLEUD route, is that the anti airport brigade within the council can't decide the outcome. No doubt that's also why those people kicked off about it when this first happened. They know that they are powerless.

My understanding is the appeal will initially go to a Minister to interpret the correct meaning of the existing planning approval in relation to night movements
( and what counts) and there is a further right of appeal beyond that to the courts, in which case a judge will make a final decision.

If after all that, the decision is in favour of the Luddite Council, then the airports only way forward is a planning application to vary the night flying hours and quota , ( and let's not forget that the Council previously approved such changes as part of the new terminal scheme only for the application to then be withdrawn). The problem is that a new planning application opens the door for the Council to add some serious strings to any approval, via Section 106, including the imposition of an annual passenger cap, which would be very much a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for the airport if the cap is set too low.

The public enquiry is slated for 11 March 2025 so not so long to wait. Of course this could then to a judicial review!
At the end of the day by forcing a public enquiry it’s now been taken out of the Clowncials hands….

Are you sure? A public inquiry isn't part of the process. What has a legal interpretation matter got to do with the public or a Government Inspector? It's not a planning application.

 

[quik123]

Article in Bradford T&A rag seems to say that the airport have requested a public enquiry. I wonder how public it is and who gets to speak. Obviously LBA and LCC will be represented but it might also take input from GALBA or other members of the public.

Leeds Bradford Airport hits back at claim that night flight limits were breached

CAMPAIGNERS claim Leeds Bradford Airport has broken night flight rules for the third year in a row - but the airport insists it is operating 'in…

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Article in Bradford T&A rag seems to say that the airport have requested a public enquiry. I wonder how public it is and who gets to speak. Obviously LBA and LCC will be represented but it might also take input from GALBA or other members of the public.

Leeds Bradford Airport hits back at claim that night flight limits were breached

CAMPAIGNERS claim Leeds Bradford Airport has broken night flight rules for the third year in a row - but the airport insists it is operating 'in…

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

News to me! presumably it will be confirmed at the next ACC, assuming this is accurate reporting.

 

[White Heather]

Article in Bradford T&A rag seems to say that the airport have requested a public enquiry. I wonder how public it is and who gets to speak. Obviously LBA and LCC will be represented but it might also take input from GALBA or other members of the public.

Leeds Bradford Airport hits back at claim that night flight limits were breached

CAMPAIGNERS claim Leeds Bradford Airport has broken night flight rules for the third year in a row - but the airport insists it is operating 'in…

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

It makes no sense. I have written to LBA to ask them to confirm the process, but given that the public could not influence the CLEUD applications on the Council Planning Portal, a Public Inquiry now makes no sense at all. A legal interpretation matter is nothing to do with public opinion. It may be someone is confusing a submission to a Government Inspector for consideration (on behalf of the Minister) as a Public Inquiry. Two different things!

Anyway, I've asked the question and will report back when I have an answer.

 

[Snackbar]

This has already gone beyond that stage. The Council have rejected all but one CLEUD and LBA fully expect they will reject the last, if they ever get around to it, so have already notified them of their intention to appeal the 3 refusals and also the 4th on the grounds of non determination. Once it goes to appeal, it's a legal matter and neither the Council nor airport will be able to do anything other than state their argument.thriugh their legal submission. LBA always anticipated this and the key reason for going down the CLEUD route, is that the anti airport brigade within the council can't decide the outcome. No doubt that's also why those people kicked off about it when this first happened. They know that they are powerless.

My understanding is the appeal will initially go to a Minister to interpret the correct meaning of the existing planning approval in relation to night movements
( and what counts) and there is a further right of appeal beyond that to the courts, in which case a judge will make a final decision.

If after all that, the decision is in favour of the Luddite Council, then the airports only way forward is a planning application to vary the night flying hours and quota , ( and let's not forget that the Council previously approved such changes as part of the new terminal scheme only for the application to then be withdrawn). The problem is that a new planning application opens the door for the Council to add some serious strings to any approval, via Section 106, including the imposition of an annual passenger cap, which would be very much a case of out of the frying pan into the fire for the airport if the cap is set too low.


Are you sure? A public inquiry isn't part of the process. What has a legal interpretation matter got to do with the public or a Government Inspector? It's not a planning application.

As I understand the process you appeal to the planning inspectorate and they can determine if an inquiry is required….anybody can input into that inquiry. Should you then disagree with the decision from the inquiry you can then appeal to the High Court. https://www.gov.uk/appeal-lawful-development-certificate-decision/after-you-appeal

As I understand the process you appeal to the planning inspectorate and they can determine if an inquiry is required….anybody can input into that inquiry. Should you then disagree with the decision from the inquiry you can then appeal to the High Court. https://www.gov.uk/appeal-lawful-development-certificate-decision/after-you-appeal

Case details here https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/CaseSearch.aspx

As I understand the process you appeal to the planning inspectorate and they can determine if an inquiry is required….anybody can input into that inquiry. Should you then disagree with the decision from the inquiry you can then appeal to the High Court. https://www.gov.uk/appeal-lawful-development-certificate-decision/after-you-appeal


Case details here https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/CaseSearch.aspx

Should have added you need to go to the advanced search and put the date of the inquiry in i.e. 11/3/25.

 

[quik123]

Reference: APP/N4720/X/24/3354210

acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

For future info the reference is

APP/N4720/X/24/3354210​

Thanks for the info SnackBar. So it looks like anyone can have a say! There is a big 'Make Representation' button. And closing date is 5 Dec 2024 so not a great deal of time. It also looks like the appellant (LBA) can have a final say after this date as can LCC.

 

[White Heather]

Shame they can't just cut out all the messing about, reject the appeal (as is likely) and let LBA go to the High Court. At least then a decision will be made by an individual purely based on the legalities and with no agenda. Appealing to the very organisation that helped create this situation over many years, and who seem determined to ignore the obvious intentions within the original planning approval because it doesn't suit their own agenda, seems ludicrous. The only hope I have is that if they know they are likely to go to court and (if they lose) face costs, they might think more carefully before rejecting the appeal.

 

[Snackbar]

Shame they can't just cut out all the messing about, reject the appeal (as is likely) and let LBA go to the High Court. At least then a decision will be made by an individual purely based on the legalities and with no agenda. Appealing to the very organisation that helped create this situation over many years, and who seem determined to ignore the obvious intentions within the original planning approval because it doesn't suit their own agenda, seems ludicrous. The only hope I have is that if they know they are likely to go to court and (if they lose) face costs, they might think more carefully before rejecting the appeal.

The Planning inspectorate is independent of the Council - the airport will also get an opportunity to press their case for costs against the Council at the inquiry.

 

[White Heather]

The Planning inspectorate is independent of the Council - the airport will also get an opportunity to press their case for costs against the Council at the inquiry.

Thanks. Glad to hear it.

However, what I do not understand, at all, is why the Planning Inspectorate allow public comment, let alone an inquiry. This is purely a matter of what the legal meaning of the planning approval is. It's not a matter requiring opinion, objections or support from anyone with a vested interest. Either the Council are correct, or the airport, or a bit of both. No opinion should change that.

If public comment is allowed, it should surely be relating only to legal interpretation and nothing to do with noise disturbance, climate change , and all the rest that they who shall not be named are likely to come up with.

 

[White Heather]

It makes no sense. I have written to LBA to ask them to confirm the process, but given that the public could not influence the CLEUD applications on the Council Planning Portal, a Public Inquiry now makes no sense at all. A legal interpretation matter is nothing to do with public opinion. It may be someone is confusing a submission to a Government Inspector for consideration (on behalf of the Minister) as a Public Inquiry. Two different things!

Anyway, I've asked the question and will report back when I have an answer.

LBA have confirmed the date in March (as above) for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the appeal. Although it's classified as a public inquiry, because the public can attend if they wish, they cannot participate and the arguments from both sides will be presented by barristers. The decision is likely to take 6 months after which there is the right of appeal to the High Court if legal counsel considers that there is a legal error.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

LBA have confirmed the date in March (as above) for the Planning Inspectorate to consider the appeal. Although it's classified as a public inquiry, because the public can attend if they wish, they cannot participate and the arguments from both sides will be presented by barristers. The decision is likely to take 6 months after which there is the right of appeal to the High Court if legal counsel considers that there is a legal error.

I might go to that. Do we know where it is?

 

[Finger66]

And so the Status Quo keeps going for at least one more summer season. Maybe the council has said to LBA we don't like "What you're Proposing"

 

[Seasider]

It's getting very confusing all this "legal jargon" being quoted.
As @Finger66 said, at least the airport will get another summer of following their interpretation of the rules.

 

[White Heather]

Until it's sorted I think we can forget any more based airlines unless their operations don't require departures before 0700 or arrivals after 2300. Loganair would probably be ok but if LBA lose this battle even Jet2 and Ryanair are going to have to reduce their based aircraft program.

Frankly though, having read the planning approval from 1993, it beggars belief that the Council are refusing to accept the implementation of up to date NOTAMs relating to new, quiet aircraft, as the meaning is clear and refusing to do so is illogical.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Until it's sorted I think we can forget any more based airlines unless their operations don't require departures before 0700 or arrivals after 2300. Loganair would probably be ok but if LBA lose this battle even Jet2 and Ryanair are going to have to reduce their based aircraft program.

Frankly though, having read the planning approval from 1993, it beggars belief that the Council are refusing to accept the implementation of up to date NOTAMs relating to new, quiet aircraft, as the meaning is clear and refusing to do so is illogical.

'Everyone' on here has been very dismissive of the oppositions arguments over the years yet at each critical moment they have come out on top.

I am concerned about what the future holds. I suspect even if the airport gets the result it wants from the March hearing, it will be far from the end of the matter.

Still, we have to remember that 'he who laughs last laughs longest' and remain positive.

 

[White Heather]

'Everyone' on here has been very dismissive of the oppositions arguments over the years yet at each critical moment they have come out on top.

I am concerned about what the future holds. I suspect even if the airport gets the result it wants from the March hearing, it will be far from the end of the matter.

Still, we have to remember that 'he who laughs last laughs longest' and remain positive.

In what way wont it be the end of the matter? If LBA win and the Council chooses to accept that, then it should be the end of the matter. I guess the Council could appeal but that's a risk as if they lose they'll pick up the costs.

 

[pug]

Until it's sorted I think we can forget any more based airlines unless their operations don't require departures before 0700 or arrivals after 2300. Loganair would probably be ok but if LBA lose this battle even Jet2 and Ryanair are going to have to reduce their based aircraft program.

Frankly though, having read the planning approval from 1993, it beggars belief that the Council are refusing to accept the implementation of up to date NOTAMs relating to new, quiet aircraft, as the meaning is clear and refusing to do so is illogical.

It’s not a factor that Jet2 would have to reduce their based program, they would probably have to significant cut their routes! Many of the slots are involving deep nights now, hence the growing number of arrivals into the early hours. If they were precluded from this then they would most likely have to seriously have a change in strategy.

I would hope that with Jet2 being a major employed in Leeds, they may play a large role in influencing the council over these out dated night restrictions. From what I can see most of the aircraft Jet2 and contemporaries will be operating are quieter and therefore couldn’t be compared to the aircraft of the 90’s.

 

[White Heather]

It’s not a factor that Jet2 would have to reduce their based program, they would probably have to significant cut their routes! Many of the slots are involving deep nights now, hence the growing number of arrivals into the early hours. If they were precluded from this then they would most likely have to seriously have a change in strategy.

I would hope that with Jet2 being a major employed in Leeds, they may play a large role in influencing the council over these out dated night restrictions. From what I can see most of the aircraft Jet2 and contemporaries will be operating are quieter and therefore couldn’t be compared to the aircraft of the 90’s.

Aren't we both effectively saying the same thing? I'm sàying that the flights operated by the based aircraft would have to be cut to reduce the night departures and arrivals to within limits, by whatever means they see fit, including the possible cutting of routes or reducing the number of based aircraft. You seem to be saying the same?

It's now nothing to do with Leeds City Council. They've already played their hand and said no to the CLEUDs apart from one which after a year they still haven't dealt with. It's now a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to decide and potentially the High Court. From what I have read in the existing planning approval, relating to the NOTAMs covering aircraft Quota Counts, and the future updates, LBA seem to gave a strong case relating to modern QC 0.25 aircraft being exempt, and clearly their legal advisors think so too. It's obvious the intention was that future, updated NOTAMs should be applied yet LCC seem to be refusing to budge and are insisting LBA operates according to the original NOTAM existing in 1993.

 

[pug]

Aren't we both effectively saying the same thing? I'm sàying that the flights operated by the based aircraft would have to be cut to reduce the night departures and arrivals to within limits, by whatever means they see fit, including the possible cutting of routes or reducing the number of based aircraft. You seem to be saying the same?

It's now nothing to do with Leeds City Council. They've already played their hand and said no to the CLEUDs apart from one which after a year they still haven't dealt with. It's now a matter for the Planning Inspectorate to decide and potentially the High Court. From what I have read in the existing planning approval, relating to the NOTAMs covering aircraft Quota Counts, and the future updates, LBA seem to gave a strong case relating to modern QC 0.25 aircraft being exempt, and clearly their legal advisors think so too. It's obvious the intention was that future, updated NOTAMs should be applied yet LCC seem to be refusing to budge and are insisting LBA operates according to the original NOTAM existing in 1993.

I was trying to imply that they would be tempted to pull a lot of aircraft out if it came to that, because of the nature of their growth they have almost all second wave departure return after 11pm. They won’t be able to tailor their program just to suit LBA, and it may make the airport that must not be mentioned more appealing I’m sorry to say.

If there were to be the straw to break the camels back this would be it if the night rules hold firm.