Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[Snackbar]

In Bradford they can generally speak out without much fear of losing their seat as a result. LBA causes little noise in Bradford apart from a few with sensitive ears in Baildon plus of course the moaners in Burley in Wharfedale and Menston. In Leeds, there are clearly people working the strings of MP and Councillor puppets to.ensyre they oppose the airport. It cannot be coincidence that virtually every MP and Councillor in the vicinity of the airport over the last 30 tears has openly fought to oppose it's development.

The Greens in Shipley obviously aren’t too happy about LBA. Whilst funny it’s quite alarming that people who are so ill informed can get into these positions of influence!
This was the motion they put forward which was soundly rejected!

12.2 - Leeds-Bradford Airport

To be moved by: Councillor Kevin Warnes

To be seconded by: Councillor Martin Love



Council notes:

a) Between 1999 and 2019, the number of passengers flying in and out of Leeds-Bradford Airport (LBA) rose from 1.5 million to 4 million in 2019 (pre-covid), and numbers are now rising significantly once again (post-covid).

b) During that same period, the number of flights to and from the airport increased from just over 26,000 to nearly 36,000.

c) LBA is committed to further expansion – as recently as 2020, in its application for a new passenger terminal (now withdrawn), LBA stated its ambition to reach 7 million passengers per annum, extend day-time flying hours and remove the overall limit on nighttime flying.

d) LBA allowed a total of 3,667 night-time movements during the 2022 summer season, exceeding the cap on these flights by 747.

e) Vincent Hodder, LBA Chief Executive Officer, apologised for “this error” after being served with a Breach of Consultation Notice by Leeds City Council.

f) Shipley Town Council issued a statement in June 2023 supporting enforcement action against increased night-flights at LBA and calling on the airport to “stick to the rules put in place to protect people’s health”.

g) A report published in the Telegraph and Argus in June 2023 quoted an LBA spokesperson as stating, “We understand the impact that this has had on our neighbours”.

h) Despite the above statement, LBA has now submitted five Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) applications to Leeds City Council which, if approved, could allow certain types of flight including delayed and emergency flights to no longer count towards LBA’s total night-time aircraft movements.

i) CLEUD applications are not open to public comment, despite the fact that night-time flights cause widespread and repeated disturbance for thousands of residents across Bradford District, and are therefore not an appropriate process for reviewing LBA flight movements that take place outside their permitted hours.

Council further notes:

j) The superb campaigns undertaken by the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA).

k) The statement by the Climate Change Committee in June 2023 that “No airport expansions should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place”.

l) Comments by the Committee’s outgoing Chairman, Lord Deben, in June 2023, who said, “In present circumstances, there can be no question of allowing unconstrained airport expansion… I’d urge the government to reconsider its recent Jet Zero Strategy… We have to make it quite clear to government that you cannot allow emissions growth from aviation beyond what we have already said.”

Council therefore:

1. Endorses the position of the Climate Change Committee on UK airport expansion.

2. Rejects the government’s claim that its ‘Jet-Zero’ strategy will deliver net-zero aviation by 2050 and regards this strategy as fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s national and international commitments on climate change.

3. Expresses our view that LBA’s current operations and future development plans undermine our stated ambition to make the transition to a net-zero regional economy by 2038.

4. Requests the Chief Executive to write to LBA Chief Executive Vincent Hodder to (i) request that LBA’s CLEUD applications are withdrawn and (ii) seek an assurance that LBA will abide by the cap on night-time flights.

5. Requests that the Leader of Council writes to the Leader of Leeds City Council to ask that everything possible is done to ensure that there is no expansion of night-time aircraft movements at LBA.

6. Requests that the Leader of Council, in her capacity as Chair of the WYCA Transport Committee, seeks to ensure that a full review of the operation of LBA – with specific reference to night flights, the overall number of aircraft movements and the impacts of the airport’s operations on our regional net-zero carbon commitments - is added to the Committee’s Forward Plan.

7. Requests that the Leader of Council writes to the Chair of the WYCA Transport and Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee to ask that a full review of the operation of LBA - with specific reference to night flights, the overall number of aircraft movements and the impacts of the airport’s operations on our regional net-zero carbon commitments - is added to that Committee’s Work Programme.

 

[Aviador]

I honestly believe many people in places like Menston and Burley in Wharfedale complain just because they hear aircraft not because they're noisy. One of the councillors was spot on with their comment when they referred to airport noise being a fact of life just like living next to a railway line or a road yet we don't hear an outcry from people wanting to stop traffic after 11pm.

 

[White Heather]

This is what awaits should the Greens ever get into power!
Nice to see the Labour and Tory councillors supporting the airport. The Tory lass was especially supportive, yet lost her amended motion, presumably due to a predominantly Labour Council supporting the Labour amendment, even though they were effectively on the same side - and it would seem that the Lord Mayor would side with the Greens given half a chance!

Love the fact the councillor accused they who shall not be named of deliberate scaremongering. Stopped short if calling them liars but let's face it, that's what was meant.

 

[Aviador]

Meanwhile every other country in the world is throwing up airports at a rate of ten to a dozen blissfully unaware of any so-called "climate crisis".

Here is the new second airport for Sydney:


This is of course only one of the many airport projects taking place in Australia as new airports, new terminals and runways are popping up like hot springs.

Its not just Australia as multiple other countries have some massive new airport infrastructure being built.

Its not just airports. The UK saunters on and argues about money for HS2 and other projects. Leeds and Bradford councils argue about LBA having an extra couple of flights through the night. Meanwhile Egypt presses ahead with its new Capital City project.

The Cairo project aims to build an entirely new Capital City covering 343km2 to house 5 million plus inhabitants. This is part of what it calls its "fourth generation" scheme to build several new cities in Egypt. Now imagine the co2 release from all that!

New Cairo Capital City:

 

[JRP]

Just to say the clown group have put a few tweets out regarding the CLEUD saying they and there solicitors who they have named have submitted evidence

 

[White Heather]

Just to say the clown group have put a few tweets out regarding the CLEUD saying they and there solicitors who they have named have submitted evidence

I'm still not sure that the request for evidence from 3rd parties is legal in this situation, as it's a clear attempt to allow the public to influence the outcome in a process that is clearly intended to not be influenced in such a way. I'm sure LBA have noted this and will be far from happy, but it could come back to bite the Council if the outcome is negative and the airport appeals .

Seems to me the Council are digging themselves a big hole and preparing to jump in with both feet if they allow themselves to be influenced by the Unmentionables and their chums, sorry, I meant solicitors.

 

[Finger66]

I think the airport are playing a blinder here. As you say if the council say no, then almost a certain legal challenge that has a very good chance of getting the decision overturned. If council say yes then all good. I really think LBA have done their homework here and it's a win-win for them. As you say this process should not be influenced by 3rd party evidence and I think LBA know it can't be. Equally the narrow minded group and MPs probably have to be seen to be doing something - however fruitless that will turn out to be. Ha ha ha - sorry just having the last laugh on LBA's behalf

 

[Aviador]

The right ending to all this is the airport is given unrestricted night flying due to the length of time the council failed to monitor the aircraft movements properly even under their ownership.

Following that the airport should do the right thing by offering to follow the daytime operating hours 06:00 - 23:30. It would be difficult to contest that as it was already passed by LCC with the now redacted terminal plans.

 

[Snackbar]

I see the group that shouldn’t be named () say they’ve put their evidence forward and asked the Council to reject all the CLUEDS. Their case seems to be along the lines that 3 of the applications aren’t really CLUEDS and that the other 2 are “the evidence collated and provided to the Council, shows that LBA’s other two applications are not supported by accurate information. LBA also appears not to have disclosed the breaches relied on in both applications, meaning it is not entitled to CLEUDs.”

 

[White Heather]

I see the group that shouldn’t be named () say they’ve put their evidence forward and asked the Council to reject all the CLUEDS. Their case seems to be along the lines that 3 of the applications aren’t really CLUEDS and that the other 2 are “the evidence collated and provided to the Council, shows that LBA’s other two applications are not supported by accurate information. LBA also appears not to have disclosed the breaches relied on in both applications, meaning it is not entitled to CLEUDs.”

Except they did report the breaches. All movements were reported to the council until around 2014 and after that LBA provided a system that enables the council to access data regarding all flights. Sounds like desperate measures and clearly they know that their best chance is to prove LBA have no case, but again, they shouldn't even be in a position to comment.

Except they did report the breaches. All movements were reported to the council until around 2014 and after that LBA provided a system that enables the council to access data regarding all flights. Sounds like desperate measures and clearly they know that their best chance is to prove LBA have no case, but again, they shouldn't even be in a position to comment.

Furthermore, you have to wonder how that lot could possibly know what LBA have reported and what they haven't. They dont have access to that information, so who is giving it to them?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Except they did report the breaches. All movements were reported to the council until around 2014 and after that LBA provided a system that enables the council to access data regarding all flights. Sounds like desperate measures and clearly they know that their best chance is to prove LBA have no case, but again, they shouldn't even be in a position to comment.


Furthermore, you have to wonder how that lot could possibly know what LBA have reported and what they haven't. They dont have access to that information, so who is giving it to them?

Are we still looking at a decision deadline of the 1st of November?

 

[Aviador]

Are we still looking at a decision deadline of the 1st of November?

Good question. It may be that even the time frame for making the decision is governed by law too.

According to Yahoo "An appeal can be made to the Secretary of State by an applicant if a local planning authority: Fails to determine the application for a CLEUD"

 

[White Heather]

Are we still looking at a decision deadline of the 1st of November?

That's the date quoted by the council so presumably so.

 

[Len Fish]

The timescale as set down in law in The Town And Country Planning Act 1990:
11.1.4. Once the local planning authority (LPA) have received a valid LDC application, they must give the applicant written notice of their decision:

• within 8 weeks beginning with the day after the date on which the application is received
• or within any extended period that may have been agreed in writing between the applicant and the LPA:Local Planning Authority.

Evidence requirements (as published by Leeds City Council):
Due to the significant public interest in the operations of the airport, the council has therefore decided to undertake a call for evidence.

This means that the council is seeking relevant factual evidence – such as flight data, flight times, flight frequency and size of aircraft – that relates to the specific operations at Leeds Bradford.
It is important to note that a call for evidence is not the same as a ‘public consultation’, as general comments, objections and opinions on issues such as planning merits are not being invited as they cannot be taken into account during the determination process.
As the Council itself states:
When dealing with a CLEUD application, local planning authorities – such as the council – have to adhere to regulations laid down by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

These regulations mean that CLEUD applications – which seek to confirm that an existing use of land or operational development is lawful – are not automatically subject to consultation or publication.

They also mean that CLEUD applications are determined purely on the basis of relevant factual evidence assessed against a legal test.

This in turn means that ‘planning merits’ – such as disturbance and possible impact on a surrounding area – which might typically be raised during a consultation cannot be taken into account when a decision on a CLEUD is being made.

Apologies for the length of this post but it’s important to know the legal ins and outs of the process. Meddling MPs would do well to note the requirements regarding evidence submitted and effectively mean that any evidence submitted, for example by the unmentionables, must fall within the highly restrictive criteria for it to be considered.

 

[White Heather]

The timescale as set down in law in The Town And Country Planning Act 1990:
11.1.4. Once the local planning authority (LPA) have received a valid LDC application, they must give the applicant written notice of their decision:

• within 8 weeks beginning with the day after the date on which the application is received
• or within any extended period that may have been agreed in writing between the applicant and the LPA:Local Planning Authority.

Evidence requirements (as published by Leeds City Council):
Due to the significant public interest in the operations of the airport, the council has therefore decided to undertake a call for evidence.

This means that the council is seeking relevant factual evidence – such as flight data, flight times, flight frequency and size of aircraft – that relates to the specific operations at Leeds Bradford.
It is important to note that a call for evidence is not the same as a ‘public consultation’, as general comments, objections and opinions on issues such as planning merits are not being invited as they cannot be taken into account during the determination process.
As the Council itself states:
When dealing with a CLEUD application, local planning authorities – such as the council – have to adhere to regulations laid down by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

These regulations mean that CLEUD applications – which seek to confirm that an existing use of land or operational development is lawful – are not automatically subject to consultation or publication.

They also mean that CLEUD applications are determined purely on the basis of relevant factual evidence assessed against a legal test.

This in turn means that ‘planning merits’ – such as disturbance and possible impact on a surrounding area – which might typically be raised during a consultation cannot be taken into account when a decision on a CLEUD is being made.

Apologies for the length of this post but it’s important to know the legal ins and outs of the process. Meddling MPs would do well to note the requirements regarding evidence submitted and effectively mean that any evidence submitted, for example by the unmentionables, must fall within the highly restrictive criteria for it to be considered.

My concern is the councils request for movement data as they know full well, that's a veiled invite to the Unmentionables to submit data in an attempt to contradict that submitted by LBA. Nobody else is likely to have such data.

I'm hoping they have allowed them to have their say so that when the CLEUDs are approved, the Unmentionables can't claim they were ignored - which is a shame as they should be ignored!

 

[GolfFox]

The Greens in Shipley obviously aren’t too happy about LBA. Whilst funny it’s quite alarming that people who are so ill informed can get into these positions of influence!
This was the motion they put forward which was soundly rejected!

12.2 - Leeds-Bradford Airport

To be moved by: Councillor Kevin Warnes

To be seconded by: Councillor Martin Love



Council notes:

a) Between 1999 and 2019, the number of passengers flying in and out of Leeds-Bradford Airport (LBA) rose from 1.5 million to 4 million in 2019 (pre-covid), and numbers are now rising significantly once again (post-covid).

b) During that same period, the number of flights to and from the airport increased from just over 26,000 to nearly 36,000.

c) LBA is committed to further expansion – as recently as 2020, in its application for a new passenger terminal (now withdrawn), LBA stated its ambition to reach 7 million passengers per annum, extend day-time flying hours and remove the overall limit on nighttime flying.

d) LBA allowed a total of 3,667 night-time movements during the 2022 summer season, exceeding the cap on these flights by 747.

e) Vincent Hodder, LBA Chief Executive Officer, apologised for “this error” after being served with a Breach of Consultation Notice by Leeds City Council.

f) Shipley Town Council issued a statement in June 2023 supporting enforcement action against increased night-flights at LBA and calling on the airport to “stick to the rules put in place to protect people’s health”.

g) A report published in the Telegraph and Argus in June 2023 quoted an LBA spokesperson as stating, “We understand the impact that this has had on our neighbours”.

h) Despite the above statement, LBA has now submitted five Certificate of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) applications to Leeds City Council which, if approved, could allow certain types of flight including delayed and emergency flights to no longer count towards LBA’s total night-time aircraft movements.

i) CLEUD applications are not open to public comment, despite the fact that night-time flights cause widespread and repeated disturbance for thousands of residents across Bradford District, and are therefore not an appropriate process for reviewing LBA flight movements that take place outside their permitted hours.

Council further notes:

j) The superb campaigns undertaken by the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (the group that shall not be mentioned).

k) The statement by the Climate Change Committee in June 2023 that “No airport expansions should proceed until a UK-wide capacity management framework is in place”.

l) Comments by the Committee’s outgoing Chairman, Lord Deben, in June 2023, who said, “In present circumstances, there can be no question of allowing unconstrained airport expansion… I’d urge the government to reconsider its recent Jet Zero Strategy… We have to make it quite clear to government that you cannot allow emissions growth from aviation beyond what we have already said.”

Council therefore:

1. Endorses the position of the Climate Change Committee on UK airport expansion.

2. Rejects the government’s claim that its ‘Jet-Zero’ strategy will deliver net-zero aviation by 2050 and regards this strategy as fundamentally incompatible with the UK’s national and international commitments on climate change.

3. Expresses our view that LBA’s current operations and future development plans undermine our stated ambition to make the transition to a net-zero regional economy by 2038.

4. Requests the Chief Executive to write to LBA Chief Executive Vincent Hodder to (i) request that LBA’s CLEUD applications are withdrawn and (ii) seek an assurance that LBA will abide by the cap on night-time flights.

5. Requests that the Leader of Council writes to the Leader of Leeds City Council to ask that everything possible is done to ensure that there is no expansion of night-time aircraft movements at LBA.

6. Requests that the Leader of Council, in her capacity as Chair of the WYCA Transport Committee, seeks to ensure that a full review of the operation of LBA – with specific reference to night flights, the overall number of aircraft movements and the impacts of the airport’s operations on our regional net-zero carbon commitments - is added to the Committee’s Forward Plan.

7. Requests that the Leader of Council writes to the Chair of the WYCA Transport and Infrastructure Scrutiny Committee to ask that a full review of the operation of LBA - with specific reference to night flights, the overall number of aircraft movements and the impacts of the airport’s operations on our regional net-zero carbon commitments - is added to that Committee’s Work Programme.

Yes - they got aright bashing!!!!

 

[Aviador]

I see the loonies have moved to central Leeds for the time being.

 

[White Heather]

I see the loonies have moved to central Leeds for the time being.

School holidays!

 

[Aviador]

School holidays!

I hope the cars behind were revving their engines.

 

[Len Fish]

Are those their Halloween outfits?