Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[HX3]

There was zero context from the airport’s perspective in that news article. Very lazy journalism at best, or blatant bias! Either way zero context, or counter argument.

 

[Aviador]

Spencer Stokes AKA Me myself and I

 

[The Pole]

Spencer Stokes AKA Me myself and I

He wasn't in De la soul he's too white

 

[Len Fish]

Seems like it’s the two remaining CLEUDs that are giving the Council a headache given the continuing delay with those and it seems they are the ones the Council are having difficulty countering and are likely to blow a hole in their insistence that quieter aircraft have to be counted against the night time quota. Here’s hoping.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Seems like it’s the two remaining CLEUDs that are giving the Council a headache given the continuing delay with those and it seems they are the ones the Council are having difficulty countering and are likely to blow a hole in their insistence that quieter aircraft have to be counted against the night time quota. Here’s hoping.

Of course its giving them headacres, the 1 or 2 brain cells really will be struggling!

 

[Len Fish]

Especially when those two brain cells have to be shared with the Labour MP’s and that other group of arrogant, self-righteous NIMBYs!

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Especially when those two brain cells have to be shared with the Labour MP’s and that other group of arrogant, self-righteous NIMBYs!

I foresee them kicking it down the can do that they, Labour & it's useless brain dead arrogant morons it chooses to sit on the council, will have a bigger majority in the Leeds council. Bunch of weak useless spineless idiots.

 

[JRP]

There a article on Leeds Live about the airport breaching the night quota last year, typical comments from the clown group, but what’s interesting is it says the maximum fine the airport can get for breaching this is only £2500

 

[LBAYORKIE]

There a article on Leeds Live about the airport breaching the night quota last year, typical comments from the clown group, but what’s interesting is it says the maximum fine the airport can get for breaching this is only £2500

Thats correct.

 

[Len Fish]

So the airport could keep on exceeding the nightime limit each year for £2500? Cheap at the price! Hopefully though the Council will have to concede that because of their failure to correctly apply the limit over the years it can’t be enforced and LBA can continue operating at night as they are currently.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

So the airport could keep on exceeding the nightime limit each year for £2500? Cheap at the price! Hopefully though the Council will have to concede that because of their failure to correctly apply the limit over the years it can’t be enforced and LBA can continue operating at night as they are currently.

I suspect the 10 year 'rule' will be over-ruled.

 

[Kevin Farnell]

I suspect the 10 year 'rule' will be over-ruled.

Who has the authority to do that?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Who has the authority to do that?

No idea but in the case of LBA the past has proved that where theres a will theres a way.

 

[GolfFox]

Wonder if the Airlander 10 is countable as a night movement if anyone buys a few to spend a week cruising up from Majorca?? Have the NIMBYs scratching their heads!!!

 

[Len Fish]

I suspect the 10 year 'rule' will be over-ruled.

Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduces the 10-year rule. As it’s covered in law it cannot be overruled, to do so would be unlawful and an evidenced qualifying CLEUD would have to be approved A change in the law would be needed before the 10 year rule could be amended/changed.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduces the 10-year rule. As it’s covered in law it cannot be overruled, to do so would be unlawful and an evidenced qualifying CLEUD would have to be approved A change in the law would be needed before the 10 year rule could be amended/changed.

Im sure 'someone' will find a way around it, possibly on a technicality.

 

[White Heather]

Im sure 'someone' will find a way around it, possibly on a technicality.

The only way around it is to disprove the evidence submitted by LBA in some way. Irrespective of that, the airport have the right to appeal to the Minister and after that to court if they consider good evidence is being ignored for political purposes, which lets face it, is a distinct possibility. The Council would far rather be able to say 'dont blame us,' although if it went to court and the airport won their case, I imagine the Council would then end up with all costs to pay.

An appeal by LBA remains a distinct possibility for the two CLEUDs already refused. However I suspect they are waiting for the outcome if the other two first to assess the overall outcome and impact on future growth. They've already said the remain confident that their interpretation is the correct one and if their legal advisors think so too, then an appeal will hopefully happen.

 

[Finger66]

I hope they do appeal as necessary. It’s about time LBA along with us as supporters properly stood up to LCC, the NIMBYs and anyone else anti LBA. Yes I know we are biased in LBAs favour but it does so much for the region already and could also do so much more by being cut even a little bit of slack

 

[HX3]

An appeal may hurt the coffers of LCC, so if politics, gamesmanship or otherwise are at play by them, they may come to regret it. To be honest, I don’t think LCC fully understands CLEUD, I think they are treating it like a planning matter, which it is not. Let’s hope they come a cropper and that they who shall not be named learn to bean count for some other unworthy purpose.

 

[Aviador]

LCC will fully understand CLEUD and I am sure what they will be doing is trying to work out how they can get through this whilst protecting the integrity of the council.