Airport seeks legal clarification on night flying

[SierraHotel]

What a desperately sad group of individuals they are. They clearly lead such a miserable existence as to find a source of pleasure from being obstructive, self centred and delusional. They really are a blight on society.

 

[White Heather]

Well according to the great unwashed “We have a top quality legal team to represent us at the inquiry, working for us at discounted rates, but we still need to raise £30,000”.
Seems they’ve appointed the same barrister who was a total failure when she represented them on the Councils planning enquiry in that she didn’t even know how to use video conferencing

This is a copy of the reply I got from LBAs director who is in charge of all things CLEUD related.


The CLEUD’s have gone directly to the Planning inspectorate who has now listed the appeals at a Public Inquiry on 11th March 25. It’s a planning matter based upon the legal interpretation of the planning conditions, the case doesn’t go to a Minister first. The decision of the Planning Inspectorate can be challenged in the High Court if we feel an error has been made by the Inspectorate. It’s just called a public inquiry as it’s open for the public to attend, but not participate in. The arguments are made by Barristers on both sides. It’s likely to be around 6 months for a decision to be made by the Inspectorate once the Inquiry finishes

What a desperately sad group of individuals they are. They clearly lead such a miserable existence as to find a source of pleasure from being obstructive, self centred and delusional. They really are a blight on society.

I would so LOVE it if they employed this woman to be there and she was then told she isn't allowed to speak!

 

[Snackbar]

This is a copy of the reply I got from LBAs director who is in charge of all things CLEUD related.


The CLEUD’s have gone directly to the Planning inspectorate who has now listed the appeals at a Public Inquiry on 11th March 25. It’s a planning matter based upon the legal interpretation of the planning conditions, the case doesn’t go to a Minister first. The decision of the Planning Inspectorate can be challenged in the High Court if we feel an error has been made by the Inspectorate. It’s just called a public inquiry as it’s open for the public to attend, but not participate in. The arguments are made by Barristers on both sides. It’s likely to be around 6 months for a decision to be made by the Inspectorate once the Inquiry finishes


I would so LOVE it if they employed this woman to be there and she was then told she isn't allowed to speak!

Seems they and their barrister obviously have a different view point which is strange as both parties are being represented by KCs.
Just re-read their begging page - that group is so up themselves - strange really as they managed to stop diddly squat
Their representation I would expect would make little difference - as you say this is a black and white case based on legal facts and principles rather than what people might or might not want.

 

[White Heather]

Seems they and their barrister obviously have a different view point which is strange as both parties are being represented by KCs.
Just re-read their begging page - that group is so up themselves - strange really as they managed to stop diddly squat
Their representation I would expect would make little difference - as you say this is a black and white case based on legal facts and principles rather than what people might or might not want.

Well rules are rules. These idiots are nothing more than public so shouldn't be allowed to waste everyone's time pontificating at the inquiry. There are two sides to this argument, not three. There's no need for them and the council to put forward different interpretations of the legal meaning of the planning consent. What the hell has it to do with these morons? No doubt they'll want to witter on about night flights keeping them awake all night - which is handy as they can then sit at their PC counting landings and filling in spreadsheets..

 

[Snackbar]

Well rules are rules. These idiots are nothing more than public so shouldn't be allowed to waste everyone's time pontificating at the inquiry. There are two sides to this argument, not three. There's no need for them and the council to put forward different interpretations of the legal meaning of the planning consent. What the hell has it to do with these morons? No doubt they'll want to witter on about night flights keeping them awake all night - which is handy as they can then sit at their PC counting landings and filling in spreadsheets..

I presume they are working on the basis of gaining “rule 6 status”. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ment-or-lawful-development-certificate-appeal

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I presume they are working on the basis of gaining “rule 6 status”. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ment-or-lawful-development-certificate-appeal

Whatever, if they say they are entitled to participate then Im sure they can. They are no fools.

 

[Aviador]

Not LBA but the Portuguese Government has now put a ban on flights between 1 am and 5 am at LIS…. This will continue to most airports over the next few years.

This policy will likely change if they realise the amount of business going to Portugal drops off. Airport require a 24 hour availability, it's the nature of the business in a global economy.

 

[White Heather]

I presume they are working on the basis of gaining “rule 6 status”. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ment-or-lawful-development-certificate-appeal

Good God!
The guidance does suggest that Rule 6 applicants should be able to show they are adding something different to the main parties, otherwise they should work together with the party they are supporting, in this case, the Council. So let's hope that they can't get the money together or their request is refused. Given the issue is entirely the interpretation of the planning approval (NOT the airports alleged breaches of night flying) it's hard to see the merit of them participating.

Whatever, if they say they are entitled to participate then Im sure they can. They are no fools.

Matter of opinion! They can apply but if they don't demonstrate that they are adding value, rather than simply covering the same ground as the Council, they can be refused. As the matter relates to a planning approval, not alleged breaches of night flights,.it's hard to see how they can add value.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Scum. I have no other words for them. other than that.

Along with the labour MP's supporting said scum.

 

[Len Fish]

…they’ve stated their successes in stopping the terminal development…..

Indeed they have and their success is there for them to see, currently being built as we speak!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Good God!
The guidance does suggest that Rule 6 applicants should be able to show they are adding something different to the main parties, otherwise they should work together with the party they are supporting, in this case, the Council. So let's hope that they can't get the money together or their request is refused. Given the issue is entirely the interpretation of the planning approval (NOT the airports alleged breaches of night flying) it's hard to see the merit of them participating.

Matter of opinion! They can apply but if they don't demonstrate that they are adding value, rather than simply covering the same ground as the Council, they can be refused. As the matter relates to a planning approval, not alleged breaches of night flights,.it's hard to see how they can add value.

There will be a precedent tucked away somewhere that they are aware of.

 

[White Heather]

Indeed they have and their success is there for them to see, currently being built as we speak!

A blatant lie by them! They stopped nothing of the sort. The Council approved it, the Government delayed it, Covid and the resultant lack of income together with vastly increased costs led LBA themselves to kill it but it remains on their agenda for post 2030. Meanwhile, the terminal extension is part built.
Sums up the fact they are so far up their own backsides it's laughable.

There will be a precedent tucked away somewhere that they are aware of.

Precedent doesn't come into it. They have to apply to participate and demonstrate added value. It's not a legal matter whether they can participate,.so precedent isn't relevant.. The Inquiry Inspector or his staff will decide based on their submission.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

A blatant lie by them! They stopped nothing of the sort. The Council approved it, the Government delayed it, Covid and the resultant lack of income together with vastly increased costs led LBA themselves to kill it but it remains on their agenda for post 2030. Meanwhile, the terminal extension is part built.
Sums up the fact they are so far up their own backsides it's laughable.


Precedent doesn't come into it. They have to apply to participate and demonstrate added value. It's not a legal matter whether they can participate,.so precedent isn't relevant.. The Inquiry Inspector or his staff will decide based on their submission.

I think based on past performance we can assume their case to present will be accepted. They wont have a problem raising the money as there will be plenty in the anti airport movement nationally who will chip in.

 

[White Heather]

I think based on past performance we can assume their case to present will be accepted. They wont have a problem raising the money as there will be plenty in the anti airport movement nationally who will chip in.

Even if they do, it doesn't alter the fact this is a matter of the legal meaning of the 1994 Planning Approval. They can witter on until the cows come home but the inspector will decide. And if he/she decides to back the Council, LBA will go to the High Court if there's the slightest sign that the decision is politically (or that lot) motivated. Then they can start having a whip round all over again .

 

[Snackbar]

Add to that they can ultimately submit a new planning application.
That groups success rate is dismal in that respect despite what they claim, as is that of their so called expert barrister on airport case where she failed to stop developments at Bristol, Southampton and Stansted and LBA!
Much to the dismay of their barrister and their other anti aviation mates the Bristol airport High Court judgement dismissed their appeal and stated the planning inspectorate can not over rule the national planning policy which supports regional airport expansion away from the SE. This point was made by LCCs own team during LBAs last airport terminal application - the subsequent Bristol airport High Court judgement underlines it. The current government have also not indicated any appetite to change the planning policy in respect of airport….

 

[SierraHotel]

"Urinating into the wind " springs to my mind in respect of these morons.

 

[White Heather]

"Urinating into the wind " springs to my mind in respect of these morons.

Really, I should feel sorry for them, given what a sad existence they seem to lead.

But I dont. I feel nothing but total contempt.

 

[Finger66]

"Urinating into the wind " springs to my mind in respect of these morons.

"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind"

If this does go against LBA, which personally I don't believe it will, then the whole process is badly flawed. LBA will then do right to take it to the High Court. Perhaps they who shall not be named should then get the Chief Whip-round involved!

 

[White Heather]

I presume they are working on the basis of gaining “rule 6 status”. https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ment-or-lawful-development-certificate-appeal

Well, I can tell you they've already made their case for Rule 6 status successfully and their in. They will be there fighting to damage our airport in March, assuming they have the money which I'm sure they will given there is clearly support from their anti aviation mates around the UK.

Let's hope there's some supportive public in there too giving them a rough ride. No doubt the BBC and their anti airport reporter will have it in their diary already so they can give them a prime time interview.

 

[Finger66]

I have it on good authority that Look North were sniffing around on Saturday trying to get some "windy" landings. There was apparently also an opportunity to speak to them. Shame I wasn't around else they may just have got a piece of my mind, especially if it was SS that was there