Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[White Heather]

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

All they did was ensure LBA dug even deeper and provide even more evidence. The revised legal statement not only does this but provides evidence that LCC not only knew about the breaches of the planning conditions for more than 10 years, they chose not to take enforcement action partly due to the disruption it would cause. In so doing, and in accordance with planning laws, the airport should now be free to continue as they are, which is good, but now it will be legal, and NOT a breach. We all have they who shall not be named to thank for this .

 

[Finger66]

You really couldn't write this stuff! It just proves how clueless and ignorant ***** are you the real facts. I really can't wait for the outcome on this, it certainly seems like it is going to be sweet music to our ears

 

[Len Fish]

The deluded they who shall not be named seem to regard the withdrawal of the four remaining CLUEDs and their replacement with four new ones with even more supporting evidence by LBA as a victory! How does that work? Plus I see Sobel is still sticking his oar in attempting to influence the decision contrary to the legal process and law involved.

 

[Aviador]

The updated applications seem to be dated 6th September. Does this mean a decision still needs to be made in accordance with the agreed timescale from before the change?

 

[White Heather]

The updated applications seem to be dated 6th September. Does this mean a decision still needs to be made in accordance with the agreed timescale from before the change?

Dont see why not. They've been looking at these now for a couple if months and have another 5 weeks or so to look now at the additional submitted evidence.

The deluded they who shall not be named seem to regard the withdrawal of the four remaining CLUEDs and their replacement with four new ones with even more supporting evidence by LBA as a victory! How does that work? Plus I see Sobel is still sticking his oar in attempting to influence the decision contrary to the legal process and law involved.

Perhaps they've been reading the equally deluded Wharfe Valley rag.

 

[Aviador]

Has anyone brought it to the attention of Mr Sobel the fact that LBA was partly under ownership of Leeds City Council and therefore under his party's watch when they allowed the airport to operate an unlimited number of unauthorised flights over a number of years unchallenged. During this same period Sentinel Car Parks was being allowed to operate unchallenged and it won its CLEUD application having broke the rules for so long they too were allowed to continue.

 

[White Heather]

Has anyone brought it to the attention of Mr Sobel the fact that LBA was partly under ownership of Leeds City Council and therefore under his party's watch when they allowed the airport to operate an unlimited number of unauthorised flights over a number of years unchallenged. During this same period Sentinel Car Parks was being allowed to operate unchallenged and it won its CLEUD application having broke the rules for so long they too were allowed to continue.

I would suspect that's a no. He's my MP but I would not waste ink on writing to him. I've told him before what I think of him and I think the fact his 'paperboys' who deliver Labour Party nonsense leaflets never leave one through my letterbox tells you that he is well aware of my views.

He thinks he's above the law apparently. He's been told he cannot interfere, nor can anyone else, yet apparently he continues to try. Leeds City Council should file all his correspondence in the appropriate place. The bin .

 

[blotbuc1]

The updated applications seem to be dated 6th September. Does this mean a decision still needs to be made in accordance with the agreed timescale from before the change?

The new applications are not yet showing on the LCC website. The applications which show and are dated the 6th September are the original applications and shown as withdrawn today, the 14th December. The new applications will have to be determined within 8 weeks of the date that they were registered by LCC unless an extension of time is agreed with LBA. The date they were registered will show when they appear on the LCC website.

The applications are new and the ‘clock’ for their determination is reset.

 

[tonysmith]

The usual drivel was on the t&a online today

 

[White Heather]

The new applications are not yet showing on the LCC website. The applications which show and are dated the 6th September are the original applications and shown as withdrawn today, the 14th December. The new applications will have to be determined within 8 weeks of the date that they were registered by LCC unless an extension of time is agreed with LBA. The date they were registered will show when they appear on the LCC website.

The applications are new and the ‘clock’ for their determination is reset.

They shouldn't need 8 weeks. The only additional information beyond that they've had for ages is the additional evidence submitted. They've had smoke time to consider the main points within the CLEUDs.

Bearing in mind the only reason that new submissions have been made is to assist the Council (at the Councils request), further extending the date by which the applications are determined seems wholly unreasonable and should not be necessary.

 

[blotbuc1]

They shouldn't need 8 weeks. The only additional information beyond that they've had for ages is the additional evidence submitted. They've had smoke time to consider the main points within the CLEUDs.

Bearing in mind the only reason that new submissions have been made is to assist the Council (at the Councils request), further extending the date by which the applications are determined seems wholly unreasonable and should not be necessary.

The applications have to be determined WITHIN 8 weeks unless an extension is agreed. No doubt LCC will be ensuring that they are seen to be giving the submitted evidence proper consideration to ensure that their decisions are not open to challenge. As new applications due process will have to be followed. However, as you rightly say WH a lot of the ground has been covered already so hopefully 8 weeks won’t be required to make the decisions.

 

[Seasider]

I am still not expecting to hear of the outcome before Mid February. They will use the full 8 weeks to show opponents that due diligence has been undertaken. Any outcome before will lead to comments that they have short cut the process.
We are all aware that all processes involving LCC are never completed in the original stated time.

 

[blotbuc1]

I am still not expecting to hear of the outcome before Mid February. They will use the full 8 weeks to show opponents that due diligence has been undertaken. Any outcome before will lead to comments that they have short cut the process.
We are all aware that all processes involving LCC are never completed in the original stated time.

The Council will no doubt again issue a ‘call for evidence’ on the new applications. Expect the usual suspects to claim that the time period for determination should be extended because it includes the Christmas and New Year holidays which will limit the time they have to consider the new evidence and respond. I would be surprised if they haven’t done this already.

 

[White Heather]

The Council will no doubt again issue a ‘call for evidence’ on the new applications. Expect the usual suspects to claim that the time period for determination should be extended because it includes the Christmas and New Year holidays which will limit the time they have to consider the new evidence and respond. I would be surprised if they haven’t done this already.

Frankly that's ridiculous. These are not new applications really. They are the same applications, with additional evidence supplied to counter the so called evidence put forward by they who shall not be named. They were only issued as requested by the council to assist them as the additional evidence being linked to the original applications correctly was probably beyond them.

If they go back out again and ask for more evidence, then they are simply duplicating and deliberately procrastinating, and if anything new comes in, then LBA will have the right to counter that as well. We could go on forever doing that, and ongoing delay won't suit either side.

 

[blotbuc1]

Frankly that's ridiculous. These are not new applications really. They are the same applications, with additional evidence supplied to counter the so called evidence put forward by they who shall not be named. They were only issued as requested by the council to assist them as the additional evidence being linked to the original applications correctly was probably beyond them.

If they go back out again and ask for more evidence, then they are simply duplicating and deliberately procrastinating, and if anything new comes in, then LBA will have the right to counter that as well. We could go on forever doing that, and ongoing delay won't suit either side.

It may seem ridiculous, but the original applications have been withdrawn and are no longer being considered by the Council. The new applications and their supporting evidence are what are to be determined. The Council issued a’ call for evidence‘ on the original applications. Not to follow the same procedure now and deny third parties the opportunity to provide further relevant evidence, if they possess it, could make any decisions open to challenge with subsequent delays.

Given the comprehensive evidence that LBA have now submitted it seems highly unlikely that a third party could provide contradictory evidence.
Government guidance on Lawful Development Certificates:

Lawful development certificates

Explains the process for obtaining a lawful development certificate for existing or proposed use.

www.gov.uk

In the case of applications for existing use, if a local planning authority has no evidence itself, nor any from others, to contradict or otherwise make the applicant’s version of events less than probable, there is no reason to refuse the application, provided the applicant’s evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate on the balance of probability.

The Council should be able to make its decisions relatively quickly once it has followed the relevant process. It has to be acknowledged that the tactics employed by organised objectors, especially when they are unlikely to prevail, are to use procedural delay and challenge. The opportunity for challenges needs to be avoided.

 

[White Heather]

On that basis then, because the Council couldn't cope with reconciling all the additional evidence provided by LBA with the existing four applications (which was provided to counter the evidence given by objectors), and because they asked to LBA to withdraw the originals and resubmit them, (which LBA agreed to do) the objectors now get a second opportunity to try and pick holes in the airports case. They wouldn't have had that opportunity had the council been capable of accepting and processing the evidence .

 

[blotbuc1]

On that basis then, because the Council couldn't cope with reconciling all the additional evidence provided by LBA with the existing four applications (which was provided to counter the evidence given by objectors), and because they asked to LBA to withdraw the originals and resubmit them, (which LBA agreed to do) the objectors now get a second opportunity to try and pick holes in the airports case. They wouldn't have had that opportunity had the council been capable of accepting and processing the evidence .

As you say LBA agreed to submit new applications and Vincent Hodder in his open letter on the LBA website assumes that the Council will follow the same procedure to allow interested parties to comment on the new applications:

https://lba-production.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/cleud-update-letter-(131223)-1702477758.pdf

With the contacts you have the reason for the agreement to submit new applications will be correct.

 

[paully]

On that basis then, because the Council couldn't cope with reconciling all the additional evidence provided by LBA with the existing four applications (which was provided to counter the evidence given by objectors), and because they asked to LBA to withdraw the originals and resubmit them, (which LBA agreed to do) the objectors now get a second opportunity to try and pick holes in the airports case. They wouldn't have had that opportunity had the council been capable of accepting and processing the evidence .

Right in a nutshell Heather....If you will please pardon the expression, but I think it sums LCC up to a tee....If you play with the bull, sooner or later, you will get its horns up your arse. That is precisely the position that LCC have through their own incompetency/weakness and ideology placed themselves in. No one else to blame. LBA have taken proper legal advice,have identified the weakness of the LCC and gone for it ruthlessly and in my opinion, correctly so.

Every step that LBA have taken/agreed/delayed,will have been taken following legal advice. LCC Councillors will have been made brutally aware by their legal advisors that their position is untenable. Consequent upon that delay/obfuscation and hatred are all they have left.When LBA lawyers deem the time is right, they will crucify them on the bonfire of their own vanities..Everything comes to he who waits.

 

[Len Fish]

It’s in the interests of the airport to have good relations with the Council and I can’t see them twisting the knife when the CLEUDs are hopefully approved. The Council will have all on to explain to the airport’s opponents that it was their (the Council’s) fault over the years that has led to this and are going to receive a lot of flak. I doubt LBA would want to add to their discomfort and would rather keep them onside for the future.

 

[White Heather]

It’s in the interests of the airport to have good relations with the Council and I can’t see them twisting the knife when the CLEUDs are hopefully approved. The Council will have all on to explain to the airport’s opponents that it was their (the Council’s) fault over the years that has led to this and are going to receive a lot of flak. I doubt LBA would want to add to their discomfort and would rather keep them onside for the future.

That's true.
However, the 1993 planning approval quite clearly allows for the updating of the restrictions to allow for modern aircraft developed over time (in other words it was future proofed via updated NOTAMs) yet it appears LCC have been attempting to force LBA to operate under the 1993 rules with no updating, and I would suggest that was because they recognised that updating the permissible aircraft would enable such types to operate outside the night restrictions, because they are too quiet to fall within them. That of course, is now the subject of the CLEUDs.

It's good that this process exists, because otherwise businesses can be prevented from operating in accordance with planning approvals by unscrupulous councillors with ulterior motives. The CLEUDs take such people out of the equation.