Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[Finger66]

Oooohhhh poor council. Have they too scored an own goal! That's LBA two up with own goals from the council and they who shall not be named then

 

[JRP]

I guess the council have been totally perplexed by the airports legal team, and are pretty clueless to what’s going on, but we all no it’s all there own making. I guess they are trying to find a needle in a haystack to try and decline it,

 

[Hendi]

So from what I'm reading correct me if I'm wrong. The council are going to find it hard reject this and are playing the time game to make themselves look ike they've fought it??...
However if they do decide to reject it the airport will take them to court over it and will likely win?.. and just who's evidence are the airport going over thier own, the airports a 3rd parties? Fingers crossed for a positive outcome and there isn't another delay in January. how many delays are the airport willing to put up with.

 

[White Heather]

So from what I'm reading correct me if I'm wrong. The council are going to find it hard reject this and are playing the time game to make themselves look ike they've fought it??...
However if they do decide to reject it the airport will take them to court over it and will likely win?.. and just who's evidence are the airport going over thier own, the airports a 3rd parties? Fingers crossed for a positive outcome and there isn't another delay in January. how many delays are the airport willing to put up with.

We dont really know . What we do know is:

The Council can only reject any of the CLEUDs if there are legally demonstrable grounds for doing so.

LBAs legal advisors are clearly of the opinion that the airport is on solid ground from a legal standpoint and that they can demonstrate this with available evidence.

The airport have agreed to both delays and are not unduly concerned by them, which might be taken as an indication that the two parties share a cooperative attitude.

The latest delay is partly at least due to LBA providing the Council with a considerable amount of data and evidence to support their applications. If this evidence counters any claims made by they who shall not be named, then a delay is worth taking.

If the Council were certain that these applications had no legal merit, they would almost certainly have rejected them by now. They haven't and for me that is a good sign.

 

[Hendi]

Thanks for the explanation White Heather. let's hope it's the last delay and it falls in the airports favour and for those who would love to see it grow to its potential.

 

[Snackbar]

From Westwood Councillors Facebook page
“
UPDATE ON AIRPORT ‘CLEUD’ APPLICATIONS

We understand that Leeds Bradford Airport have withdrawn their remaining ‘Certificate of Lawful or Existing Use Development’ applications.

When we hosted a public meeting earlier in the year with their Chief Exec, it was hard to see the case for their submissions. We don’t yet have the full info about why they are withdrawing but Jools is on the Airport Consultative Committee which meets later this month where hopefully we’ll find out more about their reasoning. Either way, we’ll keep you updated - just follow our page.

To find out more about the CLEUDS see here: https://www.facebook.com/100064268312758/posts/713407634144841/?d=n&mibextid=WC7FNe

 

[Finger66]

Surely they haven't got the facts right here. They confusing "all" with the "one" we know about? Or have the council finally come to their senses and reached agreement with LBA?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I think the airport meeting referred to is the ACC next Weds 20th of December.

 

[JRP]

4 still current on the council portal, 1 was withdrawn as stated before
Maybe this is good PR people may think it’s withdrawn when actually it isn’t

 

[Snackbar]

It seems those Councillors were premature in their update and now have provided another one! you think as elected representative they’d have some sort of an idea as to what was going on within the Concil, but then again
This looks set to run for some time…..
“
UPDATE ON AIRPORT ‘CLEUD’ APPLICATIONS

Further update: the airport have withdrawn the CLEUD applications, but have submitted four new ones. In substance they are apparently no different, but they have put in more 'historic' data.

Please see the letters explaining this from the Chief Exec of LBA on our website: https://www.weetwoodrose.co.uk/post/update-on-lba-cleud-applications”

 

[White Heather]

Yes, I have been in touch with LBA and confirmed that :

Following the original submission of 5 CLEUDS, LCC asked for evidence from third parties to assist with the decision making process. Predictably, they who shall not be named had a lot to say and as a result, LBA submitted a large amount of additional evidence to counter their claims. They also withdrew one CLEUD which was deemed unnecessary as it effectively duplicated others.

LCC have, after delaying a decision until January, asked LBA to withdraw the original applications and resubmit them with all the data, including the additional evidence, attached to each. LBA have done so and have no concerns with this. They have now identified and submitted more evidential data than the first time around. The nature of each CLEUD remains as before.

Presumably this explains the delay in reaching a decision to next month.

LBA have now issued a new updated open letter from Vince Hodder, which includes details of last summer's night movement totals, and there is a new Statement (as issued to LCC) which is available to view on the airport website, as previously.

I can't help thinking that based on the information given to me, They Who Shall Not Be Named, have shot themselves in the foot yet again since in countering their claims, LBA have actually generated more evidence to support their case.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

It seems those Councillors were premature in their update and now have provided another one! you think as elected representative they’d have some sort of an idea as to what was going on within the Concil, but then again
This looks set to run for some time…..
“
UPDATE ON AIRPORT ‘CLEUD’ APPLICATIONS

Further update: the airport have withdrawn the CLEUD applications, but have submitted four new ones. In substance they are apparently no different, but they have put in more 'historic' data.

Please see the letters explaining this from the Chief Exec of LBA on our website: https://www.weetwoodrose.co.uk/post/update-on-lba-cleud-applications”

The CLEUD Q & A document is interesting. It states that Jet2 and Wizz have operated a small number of flights in the last year that have breached the night flying restrictions and both have been issued with fines.

 

[Seasider]

Have the council asked LBA to resubmit to give them more time?
If they have just resubmitted, this gives the Council 8? weeks to respond which will be Mid February.

 

[Aviador]

Have the council asked LBA to resubmit to give them more time?
If they have just resubmitted, this gives the Council 8? weeks to respond which will be Mid February.

I was thinking the same.

 

[White Heather]

Have the council asked LBA to resubmit to give them more time?
If they have just resubmitted, this gives the Council 8? weeks to respond which will be Mid February.

No. I suspect that the previously announced delay to January is in connection with this resubmission, which clearly, LBA and their legal advisors have been working on for some time. The Council wanted the resubmissions so that all the relevant additional data, and what was provided first time around was attached with each application, so seems like a means to to provide more clarity.

Even if the Council do delay further, LBA seem relaxed about it and a read through the legal statement on the LBA website suggests why. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming.

The CLEUD Q & A document is interesting. It states that Jet2 and Wizz have operated a small number of flights in the last year that have breached the night flying restrictions and both have been issued with fines.

Quite normal. Depart in breach of the rules and pay the fine, or stay until next day. They takes their choice and pays their money!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

No. I suspect that the previously announced delay to January is in connection with this resubmission, which clearly, LBA and their legal advisors have been working on for some time. The Council wanted the resubmissions so that all the relevant additional data, and what was provided first time around was attached with each application, so seems like a means to to provide more clarity.

Even if the Council do delay further, LBA seem relaxed about it and a read through the legal statement on the LBA website suggests why. Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming.


Quite normal. Depart in breach of the rules and pay the fine, or stay until next day. They takes their choice and pays their money!

Yes, but first time I have seen confirmation and amounts involved.

 

[Snackbar]

I see the usual suspects are trying to find something to celebrate around this https://www.wharfedaleobserver.co.u...t-withdraws-applications-extend-flight-times/

 

[White Heather]

Yes, but first time I have seen confirmation and amounts involved.

Pretty sure the amounts were quoted in the first legal statement.

I see the usual suspects are trying to find something to celebrate around this https://www.wharfedaleobserver.co.u...t-withdraws-applications-extend-flight-times/

Oh dear. They're going to be soooo p*****d when they find out the actual situation. ,

Yes, but first time I have seen confirmation and amounts involved.

Just checked back. The fines were included in the first Q&A, so this inclusion is not new.

 

[Hendi]

I see the usual suspects are trying to find something to celebrate around this https://www.wharfedaleobserver.co.u...t-withdraws-applications-extend-flight-times/

I love the comment it allowed those we shall not name to provide the council with vital information to oppose the clued. As if the evidence they provide makes a difference

 

[Finger66]

That's hopefully the council basically going the way of LBA by saying to those who shall not be named that "we did consider all the evidence from all parties" whilst knowing there is absolutely **** all they can do about it