Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[laviation]

Agents for MAN?

They're all gonna really hate it when LBA breezes past the 4m pax.and quite probably sets a new passenger throughput record.

Does MAN also control the weather to cause diverts at LBA? Pure tinfoil hat talk.

 

[White Heather]

Does MAN also control the weather to cause diverts at LBA? Pure tinfoil hat talk.

In case you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue in cheek comment aimed at a bunch of NIMBYs who do their utmost to shut down LBA whilst proclaiming folk should trek over the hill to MAN - or before it closed, down the A1 to DSA. Not even the great MAN can control our weather here.

 

[Snackbar]

Does MAN also control the weather to cause diverts at LBA? Pure tinfoil hat talk.

I wish MAN would control the delapl

In case you hadn't noticed, it was a tongue in cheek comment aimed at a bunch of NIMBYs who do their utmost to shut down LBA whilst proclaiming folk should trek over the hill to MAN - or before it closed, down the A1 to DSA. Not even the great MAN can control our weather here.

Never mind the weather MAN could do with controlling things closer to home….my last recent visit involved a broken lift in the multi story meaning I had to cart several heavy cases down several flights of stairs, significant delays at security, no coaches available to off load arriving passengers from the inboun LHR flight delaying my outbound flight by over an hour to LHR result a missed connection to ORD and another missed connecting to my onward flight to BNA. Add to this my luggage never made it from MAN and only arrived in BNA after 72 hours!
And people complain about LBA!

 

[Scottie Dog]

I'm pretty certain that each terminal's multi-story car park has more than a single lift?
Sorry about the thread drift.

 

[Snackbar]

I'm pretty certain that each terminal's multi-story car park has more than a single lift?
Sorry about the thread drift.

Did you really think I‘d struggle down from the 5th floor of the car park with several items of luggage without checking! Yes they do and they were all bust - that makes it even worse!

 

[Seasider]

It's the end of February today (sorry for stating the obvious), are we any nearer getting a decision on the CLUED's?

 

[Finger66]

Yes apparently only aircraft with LEAP year engines will be permitted!! On a serious note it would be good to know when a decision will be made/expected though

 

[leedslad]

Agreed expiry date in the portal is 8/3 not sure what that means though

 

[White Heather]

Agreed expiry date in the portal is 8/3 not sure what that means though

Fairly sure it means they have agreed to give their response by the 8th.

 

[paully]

Fairly sure it means they have agreed to give their response by the 8th.

Unless LCC come up with another wicked wheeze to prolong their agony on the skewer they impaled themselves on

 

[blotbuc1]

Unless LCC come up with another wicked wheeze to prolong their agony on the skewer they impaled themselves on

Failure to make a decision by the agreed date would deem the applications having been refused and leave LBA having to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision!

 

[Snackbar]

Failure to make a decision by the agreed date would deem the applications having been refused and leave LBA having to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision!

I would very much doubt Leeds City Council, would want/or could afford a lengthy legal argument over this…..

 

[White Heather]

Failure to make a decision by the agreed date would deem the applications having been refused and leave LBA having to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision!

My understanding is any appeal is to the relevant Minister, and if that doesn't result in the right decision devoid of political interference, the final appeal is to the highest appropriate court. Not sure which that would be for a legally binding directive relating to planning law, but presumably the highest civil court.

 

[Len Fish]

“A Secretary of State’s decision can be challenged in the High Court by the appellant or the local planning authority, but only on the grounds that the Secretary of State has got the law wrong or made a procedural error”.

 

[RaabBam]

LCC is not penalised if they do not decide by the advertised date. It just goes down as a late decision on their stats. Too many late decisions and planning authorities could be put in 'special measures'. These applications will have no impact on that whatsoever. Late decisions happen all the time for every local authority.

As for appeals, LBA could appeal against non-determination (i.e. LCC take way too long to make up their minds). Then it goes to PINS (The Planning Inspectorate) to decide. If PINS agree with LCC, then the final option for LBA is to take it to the High Court. I very much doubt that would happen.

Currently, LCC and LBA have agreed to extend the applications (called an extension of time) to try to properly comprehend all of the relevant information. People should take this as a positive sign, as it demonstrates that LCC and LBA are working together on this to some degree.

A final point - these applications are not straightforward. They are highly complex and involve breaches of planning control by the airport dating back a decade (naughty, naughty). Understandably, this is taking a long time to sort out.

 

[White Heather]

LCC is not penalised if they do not decide by the advertised date. It just goes down as a late decision on their stats. Too many late decisions and planning authorities could be put in 'special measures'. These applications will have no impact on that whatsoever. Late decisions happen all the time for every local authority.

As for appeals, LBA could appeal against non-determination (i.e. LCC take way too long to make up their minds). Then it goes to PINS (The Planning Inspectorate) to decide. If PINS agree with LCC, then the final option for LBA is to take it to the High Court. I very much doubt that would happen.

Currently, LCC and LBA have agreed to extend the applications (called an extension of time) to try to properly comprehend all of the relevant information. People should take this as a positive sign, as it demonstrates that LCC and LBA are working together on this to some degree.

A final point - these applications are not straightforward. They are highly complex and involve breaches of planning control by the airport dating back a decade (naughty, naughty). Understandably, this is taking a long time to sort out.

But also the failure of the Council to enforce their own planning conditions, and not by accident either!

 

[RaabBam]

But also the failure of the Council to enforce their own planning conditions, and not by accident either!

True. Planning enforcement is the Cinderella of the planning system. It is very under-resourced. Paradoxically, LCC does not have the resources to enforce even a small percentage of the planning conditions they are required to impose by policy. That shows you how broken our planning system is.

 

[White Heather]

I think it's important to note that whilst LBA has breached planning conditions in more than one way as set in 1994, these breaches started way back when the airport was owned by none other than Leeds City Council, together with the other West Yorkshire Council Authorities. The Council planning officers didn't enforce the approval , and over time, the breaches just became the norm. And of course, that forms part of LBAs case. Under planning law, if the council don't enforce the conditions for 10 years they no longer are enforceable. LBA submitted evidence that the breaches went back more than 10 years, that the council knew, and opted to take no enforcement action. The Council would need to disprove this.

The other important point is that the Council seem to have been denying the airport the ability to operate in accordance with the terms of the 1994 planning approval that they themselves set. The approval refers to implementation of updated NOTAMs which relate to which aircraft types can operate at night, as applied at the London airports upon which the LBA night restrictions were loosely based. Implementation of updated NOTAMs would allow the modern jets falling under QC 0.5 and 0.25 to operate at night - and because their noise levels fall below the limits set, they wouldn't count towards the night quota. This seems to be why the Council have been in denial on this. We currently have a situation where older, noisier aircraft can land at night (being counted against the movement quota), but technically, the quieter types which are not included in the NOTAM in force in 1994 (because they didn't exist) , are NOT allowed, and are therefore a breach of planning regulations according to the Council. Clearly this makes no sense, and is a key issue being clarified by the CLEUDs.

 

[Seasider]

LBA need a positive outcome before we start counting this summer's quota.

 

[Aviador]

So today's the day... Or is it... ?