Leeds Bradford: Airport Application To Amend Night Flying Quota Methodology

[HX3]

What reasonable argument could the unmentionables make? Noise would be punishable via the new quota system, and quieter, lower emission aircraft are encouraged. Mitigation measures are proposed in the form of insulation etc. LBA is currently an outlier with antiquated rules that are not aligned with CAA/Government guidance. LBA are not proposing anything unique, or particularly bespoke. Night flights would continue, even if the planning application failed. So, other nimbyism, I don’t see under what grounds they could complain.

 

[Len Fish]

From their website:
“More night flights would blight local communities and pollute our environment!”
They’re going down the route of the impact of noise on human health, the impact of frequent night time noise on health and the climate damage the plans would allegedly cause. They’re also challenging the economic benefits that LBA have put forward.
So just the usual stuff that hinders any sort of progress in this country and is a smokescreen for nimbyism.

 

[White Heather]

From their website:
“More night flights would blight local communities and pollute our environment!”
They’re going down the route of the impact of noise on human health, the impact of frequent night time noise on health and the climate damage the plans would allegedly cause. They’re also challenging the economic benefits that LBA have put forward.
So just the usual stuff that hinders any sort of progress in this country and is a smokescreen for nimbyism.

They totally disregard the benefits of attracting quieter aircraft because acknowleding that as fact totally undermines their basis for objecting. Same with the reduction on pollution. Their entire strategy is based around reducing aircraft movements at LBA and ideally, the airport closing. As long as they can sleep soundly with their teddybears, they couldn't give a toss about lost jobs and job opportunities. They are the ultimate example of selfishness.

 

[JRP]

They totally disregard the benefits of attracting quieter aircraft because acknowleding that as fact totally undermines their basis for objecting. Same with the reduction on pollution. Their entire strategy is based around reducing aircraft movements at LBA and ideally, the airport closing. As long as they can sleep soundly with their teddybears, they couldn't give a toss about lost jobs and job opportunities. They are the ultimate example of selfishness.

I wish I knew where some of them lived, I would go rev my motorbike up outside there house at 2am.

But that’s the point as Heather says there argument is movements, they would rather have noisy aircraft and less movements, as this planning application is about noise, the council could easily turn round and say to LBA your based aircraft have to be Neo’s and Max’s to get it passed

 

[Jetchaser]

I mentioned about seeing a planning application for a runway extension and here it is: 26/9/00128/MOD

Tue 18 Aug 2026

Leeds And Bradford Airport Whitehouse Lane Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TZ

Variation of condition 15 of application No. 29/114/93/FU - removal of part highway improvement scheme (part c and e) NON MATERIAL AMENDMENT to 07/02208/FU Revert the back to the original description of development approved under the original permission (ref. 77/28/00436) to "Laying out of runway extension, with enlarged apron area and new roads system and new balancing reservoir site, to airport."

Current

[Can't see what I read before saying 300m extension

 

[White Heather]

I mentioned about seeing a planning application for a runway extension and here it is: 26/9/00128/MOD

Tue 18 Aug 2026

Leeds And Bradford Airport Whitehouse Lane Yeadon Leeds LS19 7TZ

Variation of condition 15 of application No. 29/114/93/FU - removal of part highway improvement scheme (part c and e) NON MATERIAL AMENDMENT to 07/02208/FU Revert the back to the original description of development approved under the original permission (ref. 77/28/00436) to "Laying out of runway extension, with enlarged apron area and new roads system and new balancing reservoir site, to airport."

Current

[Can't see what I read before saying 300m extension

Hard to be sure, but it looks like it is to remove a planning condition relating to highways improvement, possibly a S106 requirement, that is now redundant, and revert back to the original conditions as stated in the runway extension approval (early 80s). Probably just 'tidying up' so if this is approved there are no outstanding loose ends that never happened.

Leeds Bradford Airport Submits Proposals for Modernisation Plans

Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) has announced the submission of proposals that would update planning conditions governing night-time operations.

airportindustry-news.com

 

[lbaspotter]

I finally got around to submitting my support letter to the councils planning portal just now.

Latest update is that the has so far been 147+ comments added:- 82+ in Support & 65+ Objections.

 

[Finger66]

The gap is a closing!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

The gap is a closing!

Yes. They will overtake us unless more of us make the effort.

I am really disappointed. There are clearly hundreds, if not thousands of aviation enthusiasts who are members of the various web sites and forums, all of whom derive pleasure from the airport, yet when it comes to 'paying back' well under a hundred have made the effort.

We had a similar lack of support for the LBA community meetings so maybe I shouldnt be surprised.

To those who have made the effort- well done.

 

[White Heather]

Yes. They will overtake us unless more of us make the effort.

I am really disappointed. There are clearly hundreds, if not thousands of aviation enthusiasts who are members of the various web sites and forums, all of whom derive pleasure from the airport, yet when it comes to 'paying back' well under a hundred have made the effort.

We had a similar lack of support for the LBA community meetings so maybe I shouldnt be surprised.

To those who have made the effort- well done.

With respect, you are preaching to the converted. Your message needs to go out on the various aviation groups you refer to, some of which you may be a member of. LBASpotter and myself have posted at least twice on them all, in some cases 3 times.

I would also make the point that the airport and its partners employs several thousand people one way or another. Where is their support and what are the airport doing to encourage employees to add their support? The airport alone should be generating enough support to see off the teddybear lovers.

With that in mind, I have written to LBA asking what they are doing to generate support, if anything, and if not, why. It seems a wasted opportunity to help themselves. I fail to see why people who work there should be denied the chance to comment.

Fortunately, it isn't a vote and if some of the comments don't cover the key issues, some will be disregarded on both sides anyway.

Frankly, at this stage, it is highly unusual for support to be ahead of objections, and the council are well aware that most objections come from the self same teddybear and pyjama brigade.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I agree with you. Having said that Ive only seen roughly ten confirmations on here from our members stating they have contacted the council. Surely we have more active members than this? Its not just those with LS postcodes, I would say anyone within earshot (so Menston, Baildon, Burley, Ilkley etc) anyone who has a business connection or anyone who uses the airport.

It seems the planning portal is set up inappropriately for a planning issue such as this which affects people over a large area.

I meet other enthusiasts regularly and they have either already contacted LCC or have pledged to do so.

I just hope more of we enthusiasts recognise that we cant just keep taking from the airport, its time to give back!

"Ask not what LBA can do for you, but what you can do for LBA" to paraphrase JFK.

 

[HX3]

People don’t have to confirm @LBAYORKIE on here if they have updated their support. I agree it is frustrating to see the figures change, but it’s personal choice if they do it. People can choose to support how they wish. For reference, I have expressed my support on the planning portal, but equally I support the airport through being a passenger, and for many people that is enough.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

We use the airport for a variety of reasons, convenience for one, but it doesnt alter the fact that right now its positive reponses to the LCC planning portal that are required.

I can't see a reason why all our members shouldnt register their support with LCC.

 

[HX3]

I can give you a reason - LCC portal is absolutely sh*te. I tried to register multiple times and after about 10 attempts I finally managed. That in itself would put most people off.
Incidentally, commentary has nothing to do with an LS postcode or living in Leeds district. There is a drop down that you can use, as I did, to say out of district comment. I suppose that is there for schemes that impact outside of the councils own district, such as LBA.
Finally, people have busy lives and just because you see no reason, doesn’t mean there is no reason.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I know prople are busy but to take 15 minutes out of your schedule must be do'able, especially since you are given 2 weeks or so in which to do it.

 

[Len Fish]

The problem is that those who we do not name have developed into not just a group objecting to LBA but into a general environmental group and can call far and wide for support from activists who will no doubt respond.
Another thing is that the university students will be returning shortly so there’s another group they may target to object. Comments close on 25 September, Leeds University opens on 21 September with the introduction week for new students so it will be a close run thing to get to them in time. Let’s hope they don’t.

 

[White Heather]

Well just to clarify, I managed to open an account on the portal, and make my comments within the 20 minutes allowed, before it kicks you out and deletes everything, but I agree the portal is very user UNfriendly ( not ladylike to write sh**e), and I can imagine a lot of people going on the portal to comment and giving up the minute they see you need an account to do so, which frankly, is ridiculous. And that is before all those who gave up last weekend when the portal was down for maintenance at the very time when people had a bit of spare time. It does feel as though the council make it as hard as possible to have your say.

 

[EX9]

Can a link be pinned to this thread or the LBA section directing users to make it more obvious? Or a pop up when you enter the Leeds Bradford Airport forum?

 

[White Heather]

Can a link be pinned to this thread or the LBA section directing users to make it more obvious? Or a pop up when you enter the Leeds Bradford Airport forum?

The links are within the Support Group reminder, copied below.

LBA Support Group update on Leeds Bradford Airport bid to ‘modernise’ night flying rules.

If you support Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) and wish to see the much needed night flying rules changes approved, then we need you all to register that support and add you comments either via the Leeds City Council (LCC) planning portal, emailing or by writing to the council.

There are certain things in a letter of support that will not be considered so, let’s remember the quality of any submission is important as well!

Do Not Include Non-Material Points

Personal Convenience: Do not write that you personally enjoy cheap holiday flights or prefer flying at night.

Property Values: Do not mention house prices, either claiming they won't drop or arguing that airport growth boosts local property wealth.

Personal Attacks: Avoid criticising opposition groups or questioning the motives of objectors.

Speculative Politics: Do not discuss local political parties, upcoming elections, or councillors' political leanings.

Airport Profits: Avoid defending the financial profits or commercial success of the airport's private owners.

Vague Positivity: Do not just write "I support this because it's good"—unbacked opinions carry zero weight.

What to Do Instead

Keep It Technical: Focus on how the Quota Count System incentivises quieter aircraft technology.

Keep It Regional: Frame your support around Yorkshire's wider economic infrastructure and job security.

Keep It Objective: Use neutral, matter-of-fact language rather than emotional or aggressive phrasing.

Point out that the application couples operational updates with a formal Night Noise Insulation Scheme.

Planning Reference; 26/04635/FU

To submit your comments log onto the Leeds City Council Planning Portal website here https://www.leeds.gov.uk/planning/planning-permission/view-and-comment-on-planning-applications and then enter into the search application number 26/04635/FU. Next click to add comments to add your own posts.

For direct link try here:

26/04635/FU | Variation of conditions 1 (Definition of the night-time period), 2 (Acoustic insulation), 7 (Maximum aircraft operations), 10 (Night-time aircraft manoeuvring), 12 (Monitoring), 13 (Use of Chapter 2 aircraft) ,14 (Act

publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk

You can also comment directly via the [email protected] email address putting your Name and the reference number 26/04635/FU of the application into the title header.

Write direct to planning services using the following address:

Planning Services
Leeds City Council
Merrion House
110 Merrion Centre
Leeds
LS2 8BB

Have you say, Please don't be the 'silent majority LBA needs your support!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Latest: Objections 96, supporting 94.