Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[White Heather]

I have this evening received a reply from Vincent Hodder, (to my earlier email to him). He says he is very grateful for all our support and that there is a genuine intention to deliver a bigger and better airport for us.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

BBC News - Leeds Bradford Airport boss hits back in row over night flights

Leeds Bradford Airport boss hits back in row over night flights

Leeds Bradford Airport is seeking permission to run more flights at night.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Aviador]

A balanced report from the BBC. That's a turn up for the books .

 

[White Heather]

A balanced report from the BBC. That's a turn up for the books .

Except for the subheading visible on the article.
But more balanced and NOT penned by our anti LBA pro DSA Horsforth based BBC Transport Editor.

 

[HX3]

Mr Sobel’s letter…wow! Someone seriously needs to help him with letter writing skills. He has totally not grasped the concept of CLEUD and as tax payers we pay for that level of ineptitude, seriously scandalous

 

[Len Fish]

Will be interesting to see how much factual information, if any, outside parties can gather to submit to the Council. I suspect that 99.9% of anything submitted will be the usual moans and groans from the usual suspects that will be immediately binned. Seemingly the airport have played a blinder and Sobel, bless him, is totally confused! Even the group that cannot be mentioned are struggling with this one exhorting everyone and his/her dog to kick up a fuss using all the old arguments. Fortunately, as above, the public involvement is so restrictive that it will all fall on legally deaf ears.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

A balanced report from the BBC. That's a turn up for the books .

As I stated previously, the editor at the Wharfedale said they couldnt print anything if the airport didnt engage with them. GALBA on the other hand did engage and provided press releases.

ive also said some emphasis has to be placed on engaging with local communities and winning hearts and minds.

Hoprfully the airport are changing their ways. Better late than never.

Will be interesting to see how much factual information, if any, outside parties can gather to submit to the Council. I suspect that 99.9% of anything submitted will be the usual moans and groans from the usual suspects that will be immediately binned. Seemingly the airport have played a blinder and Sobel, bless him, is totally confused! Even the group that cannot be mentioned are struggling with this one exhorting everyone and his/her dog to kick up a fuss using all the old arguments. Fortunately, as above, the public involvement is so restrictive that it will all fall on legally deaf ears.

If they are prepared to make the effort then so should we. We should have booked as many tickets for the meeting (streaming or otherwise) as possible rather than being passive.

However, by the time we found out about the meeting all but the streaming tickets had gone!

Why didnt the airport inform us sooner?, Was it the case that the anti-airport brigade got advance notice thereby squeezing us out?

 

[White Heather]

As I stated previously, the editor at the Wharfedale said they couldnt print anything if the airport didnt engage with them. GALBA on the other hand did engage and provided press releases.

ive also said some emphasis has to be placed on engaging with local communities and winning hearts and minds.

Hoprfully the airport are changing their ways. Better late than never.

I dont blame LBA for not engaging with local rags with a past track record over many years of printing anti airport articles and ignoring the realities. They used to attend the Consultative Meetings years ago and go away and print nonsense. I and others once got into a really heated discussion with their reporter at a meeting over their anti airport agenda.

Will be interesting to see how much factual information, if any, outside parties can gather to submit to the Council. I suspect that 99.9% of anything submitted will be the usual moans and groans from the usual suspects that will be immediately binned. Seemingly the airport have played a blinder and Sobel, bless him, is totally confused! Even the group that cannot be mentioned are struggling with this one exhorting everyone and his/her dog to kick up a fuss using all the old arguments. Fortunately, as above, the public involvement is so restrictive that it will all fall on legally deaf ears.

The majority of the factual information will probably come from they who shall not be named, in the form of movement data, but what they do supply might actually end up confirming the airports claims and lead to them winning their case. Now wouldn't that be funny!!

As I stated previously, the editor at the Wharfedale said they couldnt print anything if the airport didnt engage with them. GALBA on the other hand did engage and provided press releases.

ive also said some emphasis has to be placed on engaging with local communities and winning hearts and minds.

Hoprfully the airport are changing their ways. Better late than never.


If they are prepared to make the effort then so should we. We should have booked as many tickets for the meeting (streaming or otherwise) as possible rather than being passive.

However, by the time we found out about the meeting all but the streaming tickets had gone!

Why didnt the airport inform us sooner?, Was it the case that the anti-airport brigade got advance notice thereby squeezing us out?

You say that, and talk about 'we', yet when you were asked if you were volunteering to attend, you took the view that 'someone senior' should attend. Who would that be? At the time, tickets were available.

In any case, this is a meeting arranged to allow local Cookridge people to ask questions and understand ,(or not), the situation. It's not an opportunity to try and win arguments. It's not a debate. It has zero impact on the outcome with the council. Why should we attend and prevent the people in Cookridge getting in? We don't do the airport any favours at all.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I dont blame LBA for not engaging with local rags with a past track record over many years of printing anti airport articles and ignoring the realities. They used to attend the Consultative Meetings years ago and go away and print nonsense. I and others once got into a really heated discussion with their reporter at a meeting over their anti airport agenda.


The majority of the factual information will probably come from they who shall not be named, in the form of movement data, but what they do supply might actually end up confirming the airports claims and lead to them winning their case. Now wouldn't that be funny!!


You say that, and talk about 'we', yet when you were asked if you were volunteering to attend, you took the view that 'someone senior' should attend. Who would that be? At the time, tickets were available.

In any case, this is a meeting arranged to allow local Cookridge people to ask questions and understand ,(or not), the situation. It's not an opportunity to try and win arguments. It's not a debate. It has zero impact on the outcome with the council. Why should we attend and prevent the people in Cookridge getting in? We don't do the airport any favours at all.

I dont agree. It is an opportunity to put the case for the airport, and be seen to be supporting the airport. I'm pretty sure that GALBA will be treating this as an opportunity to reinforce their arguments and will have swamped the hall with their own supporters irrespective of where they live. I think anyone who uses the airport should be allowed to attend. In any case let's hope that the pro airport residents of Cookridge at least have seized the opportunity.

When I logged onto to the Web site - as soon as I read the post, all tickets for 'in person' attendance had gone. I have got one for the streaming (I've still to work out how this works) but I'm unsure of its value if all I can do is watch. You really need to be there to make a difference.

Anyway, that's just my view.

 

[Aviador]

I suppose if there is any evidence we could provide would be evidence from the last 15 years of all manor of aircraft types using the airport during the night time hours. It would show the legal case that backs up the fact that nobody has contested the use of such aircraft, even though when the airport was under council ownership it allowed that to happen.

 

[GolfFox]

The clown is still at it. Seems he still can’t fathom the internet and find the Q&As.

Maybe I didn't read the LCC website comments thoroughly before they sent me to sleep - but as I read it they were asking for EVIDENCE regarding the 10 year period of 'non-compliance' not public comments (unless it is 'evidence') I'm sure the airport will have supplied that 'evidence' but what 'evidence' is Sobel stirring folk up to submit? Evidence that it has happened (own goal) - in which case LBA should 'win' - 'evidence' to prove it didn't?? How does that work???

 

[White Heather]

I dont agree. It is an opportunity to put the case for the airport, and be seen to be supporting the airport. I'm pretty sure that GALBA will be treating this as an opportunity to reinforce their arguments and will have swamped the hall with their own supporters irrespective of where they live. I think anyone who uses the airport should be allowed to attend. In any case let's hope that the pro airport residents of Cookridge at least have seized the opportunity.

When I logged onto to the Web site - as soon as I read the post, all tickets for 'in person' attendance had gone. I have got one for the streaming (I've still to work out how this works) but I'm unsure of its value if all I can do is watch. You really need to be there to make a difference.

Anyway, that's just my view.

Make a difference to what?
This meeting has no bearing on anything. It's basically a Q&A session called by the Councillor. You are making it out to be something that could influence the council. It isn't. It makes no difference. It doesn't matter if the meeting is all Cookridge resident's or infiltrated with the enemy, it has no bearing on the outcome and, as I know the answers already to the questions likely to be asked, I wouldn't attend even if there were tickets available despite the fact I am a Cookridge resident.

 

[Aviador]

Exactly. The outcome can't be influenced either way. It will be all down to legalities in the end. Anyway, do you really want to put yourself out there and take on this vociferous lot @LBAYORKIE ?

 

[markietg]

Does anyone know which 2 particular aircraft it is of Jet2s that are rated QC1 on departure?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Make a difference to what?
This meeting has no bearing on anything. It's basically a Q&A session called by the Councillor. You are making it out to be something that could influence the council. It isn't. It makes no difference. It doesn't matter if the meeting is all Cookridge resident's or infiltrated with the enemy, it has no bearing on the outcome and, as I know the answers already to the questions likely to be asked, I wouldn't attend even if there were tickets available despite the fact I am a Cookridge resident.

We could get points across that the airport can

Exactly. The outcome can't be influenced either way. It will be all down to legalities in the end. Anyway, do you really want to put yourself out there and take on this vociferous lot @LBAYORKIE ?

It may not be possible to influence the decision but it would have been an opportunity to get some points across and that may be crucial if the councils decision goes against the airport and they have to apply for a new agreement. Also an opportunity to support the CEO even if its only with applause.

As I said I +personally+ think it should be someone senior within the support group that attends. As I dont know what the structure of the group is I dont know who that could be.

Im not going to persist with this matter as it seems from my 'likes' my arguments
arent appealing to the majority.

 

[Snackbar]

Coverage of the issue on this evenings Look North according to that other group. Also just heard on the radio that they are claiming the airport has already exceeded their night flight limit for this year!

Leeds Bradford Airport accused of breaching night flight cap for second summer in a row

Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been accused of breaching its summer season...

planetradio.co.uk

 

[A400]

LBA Statement

Is Leeds Bradford Airport trying to operate more night flights?

No, LBA has not submitted an application for more night flights and has no intention to change the planning conditions around night flights. LBA is simply attempting to clarify what our current permission, written nearly 30 years ago, means today. Contrary to speculation, LBA is not seeking to change the planning conditions that apply to the airport. The CLEUD applications will provide a determination as to whether a use is legal, and clarify how the existing planning permission should operate. This will allow LBA to ensure that it remains compliant with the conditions in a complicated and changing landscape. Some of the statements we have seen suggest that the granting of these CLEUD applications would lead to a huge increase in the number of night flights or indeed “unlimited” night flights. This is absolutely not the case.

Why has LBA applied for Certificates of Lawfulness for Existing Use or Development (CLEUDs)?

LBA has applied for five CLEUDs relating to the planning conditions contained in the 2007 planning approval for the airport, which itself was an amendment to a 1994 planning approval which originally permitted 24-hour operations at LBA. The current conditions were originally written nearly 30 years ago and have not been updated since. In the intervening years, the night movement scheme applying to London airports, on which the conditions are largely based, has evolved significantly and aircraft technology has changed. As a result, it is not clear how to interpret and apply those conditions today. Many other airports work in accordance with a plan which is regularly reviewed and updated. LBA does not have this and unfortunately is working with a mechanism which does not allow for reviews or updates. The purpose of a CLEUD application is to clarify the correct interpretation of an existing permission and recent usage, to determine the scope of existing lawful use. A CLEUD cannot change the scope of an existing permission. Any such change would require a variation to the existing permission or a new planning application. The determination of the CLEUD application is therefore not one which requires a judgement as to the 'planning merits' of approval or refusal, in the way in which a planning application or application to vary a permission would. It is a technical legal evaluation of the facts, and of the terms of the existing permission.

Why has LBA chosen to pursue this process that does not allow for public comment? Is it anti-democratic?

The CLEUD process is the process as set down in the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to allow local planning authorities to make decisions on the interpretation of planning conditions. LBA has not chosen the CLEUD process in order to avoid public comment via some 'more democratic' process. The CLEUD process is simply the legal route prescribed to clarify lawful use under an existing planning permission. The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 does not allow for public consultation, politics, opinions or any other external intervention in the CLEUD process, only the submission of evidence from third parties if that evidence is pertinent to establishing the facts.

What are the specific CLEUDs LBA has submitted?

11/82982033_1 2 Of the five CLEUD applications, three concern the correct interpretation of conditions that relate to: 1) the definition of aircraft noise classifications which apply to night movement restrictions at LBA 2) the definition of “exempt aircraft” 3) the scope, in terms of aircraft noise classifications, of exemption for delayed flights and emergency landings The remaining two applications relate to the enforceability, as a result of more than 10 years of continuous operation, of two specific restrictions: 1) The departure, during the night period, of aircraft with a noise Quota Count of 1; and, 2) The arrival or departure, during the night period, of aircraft with a Quota Count of 0.25 Why has LBA submitted these specific CLEUDs? There is a specific planning condition restricting the departure of noisier, Quota Count 1 (QC1) rated, aircraft during the night period. Historically, LBA has not had mechanisms in place to restrict the operation of these aircraft for at least 15 to 20 years. As a result, aircraft with a QC1 rating have been departing LBA in an unrestricted manner since before 2007. A strict application of the planning condition now would mean that any further departures of aircraft in this classification would be in breach of the conditions. This would conflict with the right under planning law that has developed over the last 15 years to allow these aircraft to depart.

While it is true that these flights would not be subject to night movement restrictions if LBA’s interpretation of the planning conditions is correct, this does not mean that the airport would then seek to attract more QC1 rated aircraft and push them to operate during the night period. At most there have been17 annual movements of QC1 aircraft in recent years, and as aircraft technology has evolved, there are increasingly fewer of these aircraft in use.

Similarly, QC0.25 rated aircraft have been operating at LBA during the night period since at least 2007. In this case, the number of movements is in the several hundred per year range. A strict reading of the planning conditions would imply that only QC1 and QC0.5 rated aircraft are permitted to arrive at LBA during the night period, and only QC0.5 rated aircraft are permitted to depart. It is in the interest of LBA, airlines and residents that the quietest aircraft are used for night movements. As a result, LBA is seeking to ensure that the operation of QC0.25 aircraft during the night period does not represent a breach of the planning conditions.

What are LBA’s current night movements?

To give some context, about 90% to 95% of all LBA night movements are used by aircraft based at LBA. These are Jet2 and Ryanair aircraft. Jet2 operate 13 active lines of flying and four spare aircraft at LBA. All Jet2 aircraft based in LBA are Boeing 737 aircraft and QC0.5 rated on departure and either QC0.5 or QC1 rated on arrival. Out of a total fleet of just under 100 Boeing 737 aircraft, Jet2 have only two aircraft that are rated QC1 on departure. These aircraft are not based at LBA but do occasionally operate out of LBA for maintenance. This has resulted in two QC1 night movements by Jet2 this year, for which they were issued with two £2,000 penalties with funds being used for local community causes. Ryanair base two or three aircraft at LBA. Two of those aircraft are 737-800 aircraft that are subject to the night movement restrictions, and one is a 737MAX which is rated as QC0.25. LBA expects that aircraft movements subject to the night movement restriction will total 2,686 this summer against a limit of 2920. 11/82982033_1 3

What is stopping LBA operating more night flights?

Putting aside planning restrictions, contrary to what some commentators have implied, there is not an unlimited supply of quieter aircraft that are waiting to come into LBA to increase night operations. LBA has operational capacity constraints during the 0600 to 0700 hour. We also have constraints over the number of aircraft parking spaces overnight. Whilst these constraints will be somewhat addressed over time with the airport’s regeneration proposals, these will provide only incremental growth over time, not significant and unlimited capacity to increase the number of overnighting aircraft. LBA has no approval for increases in terminal capacity beyond the 2019 approval granted for an extension to the terminal building. This physical capacity provides an effective restriction against the unfettered growth of the airport in future. As the airport approaches that limit, a further full planning application to allow for increased terminal capacity would be required for growth. One of the requirements for that planning approval would be a new set of rules to govern night aircraft movements. Any ability to increase the level of night movements at LBA is therefore only effective up to the level of physical capacity of the airport.

What is the difference between the CLEUD applications and LBA’s application for Level 3 designation?

LBA recently submitted an application to the Department for Transport to be re-designated as a Level 3 (Coordinated) airport during the night period in British Summer Time. This application is part of the package of actions proposed by LBA and agreed with Leeds City Council following their investigation into the number of night aircraft movements in Summer 2022 and is designed to provide greater control over the number of night movements at LBA. Level 3 designation will ensure that airlines comply with LBA’s operational restrictions or lose their rights to night movement slots. As a level 2 coordinated airport, LBA currently lacks the ability to enforce slot restrictions on airlines. The application therefore helps provide greater control over night flights.

Did LBA breach its night movement restrictions in 2022?

LBA accepted responsibility for the breach of the planning conditions relating to Summer 2022 and has complied with the Breach of Condition Notice issued by LCC. We have tightly managed the movements and reported those monthly to LCC. The limits in the conditions will continue to be in force regardless of the outcome of the CLEUD processes. However, there are important clarifications required about how particular activities and aircraft are treated under those conditions so that LBA can have certainty that it is complying with the conditions.

Vincent Hodder
Chief Executive Officer Leeds Bradford Airport

A good read in which I looked at earlier using the link on Twitter or X as it’s now known as. Agree with some of the other comments on here with praise for VH.

Looking at the comments below the link you can tell there’s clearly some bitterness from the Donny lot. Claiming when DSA “reopens” flights and demand will suddenly move there. Would love to see their evidence for that one.

 

[JRP]

Coverage of the issue on this evenings Look North according to that other group. Also just heard on the radio that they are claiming the airport has already exceeded their night flight limit for this year!

Leeds Bradford Airport accused of breaching night flight cap for second summer in a row

Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has been accused of breaching its summer season...

planetradio.co.uk

I can’t see the airport breaching this again with so many eyes from the group we won’t name watching, sounds like they are clutching at straws now

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I can’t see the airport breaching this again with so many eyes from the group we won’t name watching, sounds like they are clutching at straws now

I suppose it depends on how the airport have interpretted the conditions.

 

[mdobuk21]

If your feeling pissed off already I wouldn’t recommend watching the report on look Sheffield