Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[leedslad]

Update

Public Inquiry to start into Leeds Bradford Airport night flights

The inquiry will consider the legal meaning of night-time flying rules at Leeds Bradford Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[752]

Update

Public Inquiry to start into Leeds Bradford Airport night flights

The inquiry will consider the legal meaning of night-time flying rules at Leeds Bradford Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ironic these morons are trying to get a win on this.

Considering the government are so pro aviation at the minute, the rules LBA stick to are imposed by LCC decades ago.. & BHX has had their night policy to benefit them.
Hopefully the judge weeds out the BS from GALBA and the decision fits the region and airport best. LBA have ploughed money into the area and employment because guess what, people want to fly from LBA.

there is only one was this decision should go. Jet2 would have a lot to say and have had meeting with important government members recently, hopefully this was on topic.

 

[GolfFox]

Ironic these morons are trying to get a win on this.

Considering the government are so pro aviation at the minute, the rules LBA stick to are imposed by LCC decades ago.. & BHX has had their night policy to benefit them.
Hopefully the judge weeds out the BS from GALBA and the decision fits the region and airport best. LBA have ploughed money into the area and employment because guess what, people want to fly from LBA.

there is only one was this decision should go. Jet2 would have a lot to say and have had meeting with important government members recently, hopefully this was on topic.

It's not a 'Public inquiry' surely?? It's a determination of what the 'restrictions' actually mean? It's a legal planning matter not a 'Public enquiry' Good old BBC!

 

[752]

It's not a 'Public inquiry' surely?? It's a determination of what the 'restrictions' actually mean? It's a legal planning matter not a 'Public enquiry' Good old BBC!

Surely it should have nothing to with the NIMBYS then?!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

It's not a 'Public inquiry' surely?? It's a determination of what the 'restrictions' actually mean? It's a legal planning matter not a 'Public enquiry' Good old BBC!

I believe it is a Public Enquiry as the public can attend, they just cant have any input. So not a Public Enquiry in the normally accepted meaning of the term. WH will correct me if Im wrong.

I believe there is a specific circumstance in which new info can be presented by an interested party and its this that GALBA have, I believe been able to exploit.

 

[White Heather]

It's not a 'Public inquiry' surely?? It's a determination of what the 'restrictions' actually mean? It's a legal planning matter not a 'Public enquiry' Good old BBC!

Sadly there is the option for interested parties to stick their nose in by applying to speak and getting approval. They who shall not be named applied and sadly, were approved. It therefore became a public inquiry although it's only public in so far as the public can watch but other than the moronic NIMBYs, nobody else can participate. That's my understanding.

I believe it is a Public Enquiry as the public can attend, they just cant have any input. So not a Public Enquiry in the normally accepted meaning of the term. WH will correct me if Im wrong.

I believe there is a specific circumstance in which new info can be presented by an interested party and its this that GALBA have, I believe been able to exploit.

You spoke their name!

 

[752]

Looking at the YEP post and comments below on Facebook, there’s a huge majority that support, all with the same comments, why are you buying a house under a flight path of an airport that’s been there 80years.

Just a few effing idiots that are targeting the wrong airport, spinning the narrative to fit there agenda, all in all loser. I hope they waste ££££ more on unsuccessful time wasting

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Looking at the YEP post and comments below on Facebook, there’s a huge majority that support, all with the same comments, why are you buying a house under a flight path of an airport that’s been there 80years.

Just a few effing idiots that are targeting the wrong airport, spinning the narrative to fit there agenda, all in all loser. I hope they waste ££££ more on unsuccessful time wasting

They mostly say they bought them on the understanding that the current restrictions on night flights would apply.

 

[White Heather]

They mostly say they bought them on the understanding that the current restrictions on night flights would apply.

Well the issue is that current restrictions shouldn't apply 30 years after they were set, because the restrictions appear to allow for future NOTAM updates which supercede those referred to in the 1994 planning approval. If that's confirmed then it should allow QC 0.25 aircraft to operate outside the movement limits quite legitimately.

Its all very well them claiming they bought houses based on current restrictions but I'll bet none bothered to research what those restrictions were or whether they could be amended. It's just a lazy excuse. There is always the prospect of change. It's like claiming you bought a house based on the mortgage rate at the time then complaining when it increases. It happens snd you need to assume it WILL happen.

Looking at the YEP post and comments below on Facebook, there’s a huge majority that support, all with the same comments, why are you buying a house under a flight path of an airport that’s been there 80years.

Just a few effing idiots that are targeting the wrong airport, spinning the narrative to fit there agenda, all in all loser. I hope they waste ££££ more on unsuccessful time wasting

I've just been told in the YEP that LBA isn't a 24 hour airport. Some people!.....31 years on .......

 

[quik123]

Saw this interesting development courtesy of Yeadon City Councillors FB page. Seems LBA are about to make an application to amend a legacy planning permission rather than making a fresh application (with all the public scrutiny that would bring) I wonder if this route means the likes of GALBA or anyone else for that matter don't get a chance to object or support it.

LEEDS BRADFORD AIRPORT.
This afternoon we received this e-mail explaining the intention of the airport to ask for the controls governing night flying to be amended/relaxed. As yet we have seen no details of the proposal but when they become available we will let people know.
Dear Plans Panel Member
You will no doubt be aware that Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been seeking to secure an agreed position with LCC on the correct legal interpretation of its night flight controls. Following appeals against three CLEUD decisions and the subsequent inspector’s decision, LBA are actively engaging with LCC to determine next steps and consequently the future scheduling of aircraft movements in the nighttime period.
This engagement has led LBA to seek an agreed position with LCC through amendments to its existing 2007 planning approval (P/07/02208/FU) via a s73 application. A s73 is an application to amend conditions within an existing consent, in this case P/07/02208/FU, not the submission of a new application.
The purpose of a s73 application would be to amend only those conditions that relate to nighttime flights. The attached briefing note explains this in greater detail, but the core principle is to focus conditions on limiting noise via a capped noise quota count system. Individual aircraft would be assigned a quota count value (noisier aircraft having a larger value, quieter aircraft a lower value) with LBA subject to a fixed, annual quota count limit, thus limiting LBA’s growth to those quieter aircraft with the lowest quota count values. This would bring LBA’s nighttime operating controls in line with current CAA and UK Government policy.
Critically, the proposals will also see the introduction of a new night noise insulation scheme benefiting local communities most affected by night noise.
The proposed changes will incentivise the introduction of quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft, with the growth of the airport therefore be linked to the introduction of New Engine Option (NEO) aircraft, not the older, noisier Current Engine Option (CEO) aircraft. It’s clear from the community consultation events LBA have been undertaking during 2025, that local communities around the airport want to see the introduction of the NEO aircraft as soon as possible, which the s73 application will drive airlines to deliver.
It’s LBA’s intention to submit the s73 application in November. The briefing note is an opportunity for you to gain an understanding of the proposals in advance of the application so any queries can be addressed in advance.
Regards
Charles Johnson
Charles Johnson
Head of Planning Development

 

[White Heather]

Saw this interesting development courtesy of Yeadon City Councillors FB page. Seems LBA are about to make an application to amend a legacy planning permission rather than making a fresh application (with all the public scrutiny that would bring) I wonder if this route means the likes of GALBA or anyone else for that matter don't get a chance to object or support it.

LEEDS BRADFORD AIRPORT.
This afternoon we received this e-mail explaining the intention of the airport to ask for the controls governing night flying to be amended/relaxed. As yet we have seen no details of the proposal but when they become available we will let people know.
Dear Plans Panel Member
You will no doubt be aware that Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been seeking to secure an agreed position with LCC on the correct legal interpretation of its night flight controls. Following appeals against three CLEUD decisions and the subsequent inspector’s decision, LBA are actively engaging with LCC to determine next steps and consequently the future scheduling of aircraft movements in the nighttime period.
This engagement has led LBA to seek an agreed position with LCC through amendments to its existing 2007 planning approval (P/07/02208/FU) via a s73 application. A s73 is an application to amend conditions within an existing consent, in this case P/07/02208/FU, not the submission of a new application.
The purpose of a s73 application would be to amend only those conditions that relate to nighttime flights. The attached briefing note explains this in greater detail, but the core principle is to focus conditions on limiting noise via a capped noise quota count system. Individual aircraft would be assigned a quota count value (noisier aircraft having a larger value, quieter aircraft a lower value) with LBA subject to a fixed, annual quota count limit, thus limiting LBA’s growth to those quieter aircraft with the lowest quota count values. This would bring LBA’s nighttime operating controls in line with current CAA and UK Government policy.
Critically, the proposals will also see the introduction of a new night noise insulation scheme benefiting local communities most affected by night noise.
The proposed changes will incentivise the introduction of quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft, with the growth of the airport therefore be linked to the introduction of New Engine Option (NEO) aircraft, not the older, noisier Current Engine Option (CEO) aircraft. It’s clear from the community consultation events LBA have been undertaking during 2025, that local communities around the airport want to see the introduction of the NEO aircraft as soon as possible, which the s73 application will drive airlines to deliver.
It’s LBA’s intention to submit the s73 application in November. The briefing note is an opportunity for you to gain an understanding of the proposals in advance of the application so any queries can be addressed in advance.
Regards
Charles Johnson
Charles Johnson
Head of Planning Development

Smart move by LBA. Now, we will see just how supportive the Labour Council and Government are. Or are not.
Only yesterday, I posted that LBA was one of few airports that based night operations on movements rather than average noise levels, and today, they announce the intention to apply to amend the restrictions to that system, encouraging the use of NEO aircraft and offering an insulation scheme. There will, of course, be much wailing and moaning, endless objections expressed by councillors in my neck of the woods. Interesting times ahead give this comes AFTER LBA has been in discussion with the Planning Department. An agreed way forward to avoid a further appeal? Time will tell.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Saw this interesting development courtesy of Yeadon City Councillors FB page. Seems LBA are about to make an application to amend a legacy planning permission rather than making a fresh application (with all the public scrutiny that would bring) I wonder if this route means the likes of GALBA or anyone else for that matter don't get a chance to object or support it.

LEEDS BRADFORD AIRPORT.
This afternoon we received this e-mail explaining the intention of the airport to ask for the controls governing night flying to be amended/relaxed. As yet we have seen no details of the proposal but when they become available we will let people know.
Dear Plans Panel Member
You will no doubt be aware that Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been seeking to secure an agreed position with LCC on the correct legal interpretation of its night flight controls. Following appeals against three CLEUD decisions and the subsequent inspector’s decision, LBA are actively engaging with LCC to determine next steps and consequently the future scheduling of aircraft movements in the nighttime period.
This engagement has led LBA to seek an agreed position with LCC through amendments to its existing 2007 planning approval (P/07/02208/FU) via a s73 application. A s73 is an application to amend conditions within an existing consent, in this case P/07/02208/FU, not the submission of a new application.
The purpose of a s73 application would be to amend only those conditions that relate to nighttime flights. The attached briefing note explains this in greater detail, but the core principle is to focus conditions on limiting noise via a capped noise quota count system. Individual aircraft would be assigned a quota count value (noisier aircraft having a larger value, quieter aircraft a lower value) with LBA subject to a fixed, annual quota count limit, thus limiting LBA’s growth to those quieter aircraft with the lowest quota count values. This would bring LBA’s nighttime operating controls in line with current CAA and UK Government policy.
Critically, the proposals will also see the introduction of a new night noise insulation scheme benefiting local communities most affected by night noise.
The proposed changes will incentivise the introduction of quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft, with the growth of the airport therefore be linked to the introduction of New Engine Option (NEO) aircraft, not the older, noisier Current Engine Option (CEO) aircraft. It’s clear from the community consultation events LBA have been undertaking during 2025, that local communities around the airport want to see the introduction of the NEO aircraft as soon as possible, which the s73 application will drive airlines to deliver.
It’s LBA’s intention to submit the s73 application in November. The briefing note is an opportunity for you to gain an understanding of the proposals in advance of the application so any queries can be addressed in advance.
Regards
Charles Johnson
Charles Johnson
Head of Planning Development

Well spotted. A very interesting development, especially since they have already asked forca review of the CLEUD decision.

 

[Snackbar]

Smart move by LBA. Now, we will see just how supportive the Labour Council and Government are. Or are not.
Only yesterday, I posted that LBA was one of few airports that based night operations on movements rather than average noise levels, and today, they announce the intention to apply to amend the restrictions to that system, encouraging the use of NEO aircraft and offering an insulation scheme. There will, of course, be much wailing and moaning, endless objections expressed by councillors in my neck of the woods. Interesting times ahead give this comes AFTER LBA has been in discussion with the Planning Department. An agreed way forward to avoid a further appeal? Time will tell.

Makes sense to not go with a new planning application as hopefully this approach should be quicker given LCC have a statutory obligation to give a decision in 13 weeks. There is also no obligation on the planning panel to go out for public consultation however I would suspect they will.
Guess the airport must be confident they don’t need an application in respect of the 5m pxs as presumably they would have combined this with that application…

 

[White Heather]

Makes sense to not go with a new planning application as hopefully this approach should be quicker given LCC have a statutory obligation to give a decision in 13 weeks. There is also no obligation on the planning panel to go out for public consultation however I would suspect they will.
Guess the airport must be confident they don’t need an application in respect of the 5m pxs as presumably they would have combined this with that application…

They are. They have been all along. They consider anyway that they already complied with this requirement,( which was a s106 requirement for the abandoned 2009 terminal extension under Bridgepoint ) when they applied for and got approval for the new terminal (Project Sky) in 2019. In any case, that would be a planning application whereas this is requesting a variation to an existing approval to bring it into the 21st century.

 

[HX3]

Does anyone know if the s73 has been submitted to the council as yet? It mentions November in a post above but no specific date.

 

[White Heather]

Does anyone know if the s73 has been submitted to the council as yet? It mentions November in a post above but no specific date.

The planning g department said they would make it known when its been submitted and when they will accept letters of support. Nothing yet so presumably not yet sent in.

 

[HX3]

Thanks for confirming

 

[White Heather]

Does anyone know if the s73 has been submitted to the council as yet? It mentions November in a post above but no specific date.

By way of an update, I can confirm that no, the airport have not yet submitted the S73 application. I am advised that LBA are awaiting comment back from LCC on the proposal which is needed before they proceed further, and, despite chasing this up regularly, no such comment has been forthcoming from the Planning Department. LBA describe this as 'hugely frustrating' and they will continue to chase a response.

All sounds very familiar, doesn't it? No doubt agreement is reached with the Planning Department on a way forward but then persons unknown within that department procrastinate just as occurred with the CLEUD applications.

 

[Aviador]

What is the way forward if this continues to happen?

 

[Seasider]

LCC are going to have to come to an agreement as LBA will continue to operate as now. Maybe someone at LCC doesn't want to appear as having "egg on their face". I don't know why they can't make a decision.