Leeds Bradford Airport’s Expansion Plans Under Public Inquiry

[White Heather]

A bit of digging and it seems that the decision was made last week on the 18th.

Link to this is https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3354210&CoID=0 and the PDF of the decision can be downloaded.

Good for Insomniacs. Maybe not for the airport at the moment.

I'm so depressed at this I can't bring myself to read it.

 

[rollo]

Absolutely not wishing to add fuel to the fire but LBA surely have got to try and get this decision changed somehow otherwise I cannot see EasyJet setting up a base as there operating model requires much more flexibility with operating hours.

Just checked last nights ops.at BHX (which is NOT in an isolated spot but sits right on the city boundaries)and all five based EasyJet aircraft returned between 23:10 and 02;40.
This morning there are three departures for them before 07;00.


Jet2 and others must be scratching their heads as well and should put a joint case together.along with the airport and major local businesses.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I'm so depressed at this I can't bring myself to read it.

I read it last night. I dont understand the detail- its written in 'legalese'.

However having slept on it my conclusion is that the inspector has done a very thorough job, drawing quite heavily on precedent in some areas.

Essentially the inspector (she) has addressed all the arguments made by LBA and GALBA and has concluded that virtually none are valid.

The original agreement (as amended) was found to be robust and in fact was worded as it was to ensure that the prime purpose was to limit aircraft movements at night irrespective of aircraft becoming quieter.

So to a legal mind (the inspectors) the original agreement isnt ambiguous and still stands.

Its a very thorough analysis of the agreement and I just hope the airports legal team can find a 'chink' to exploit somewhere. Personally I cant see any scope for a legal challenge- but what do I know?

If anyone has further questions I suggest you read the full 34 pages and hope you understand more than I did!

 

[Severn]

Decision Summarised
With some help, here’s a summary of the three appeals that have been decided on:

Background
Leeds Bradford Airport sought legal clarity via three separate Certificates of Lawful Development (LDCs) relating to its permission for night-time aircraft movements under a 2007 planning consent (which updated earlier permissions dating back to 1980 and 1994).

Appeal A – QC0.25 Aircraft Breaches

• What was claimed: That quieter aircraft (with a quota count of 0.25) have been operating nightly for at least 10 years, thus immune from enforcement.
• Inspector’s decision: Dismissed
  • The quota condition refers cumulatively to the original 1993 NOTAM and all subsequent updates (2006, 2019, 2025), meaning QC 0.25 aircraft are not permitted unless separately approved.
  • There were multiple breaks of over 30 days with no QC 0.25 night-flights, which “reset the enforcement clock.” Thus, immunity had not been achieved.

Appeal B – “Exempt Aircraft” Operations

• What was claimed: That small aircraft (under 11,600 kg, propeller-driven, < 87 EPNdB, as defined by the NOTAM) may lawfully fly at night regardless of the cap in Condition 7.
• Inspector’s decision: Allowed
  • The Court accepted that these “exempt aircraft” have an established lawful right to operate at night under the existing permission. A certificate confirming this lawful use was granted.

Appeal C – Delayed/Emergency Landings

• What was claimed: That landings delayed past 23:00 up to 01:00 (and emergency flights) are lawful without regard to the movement cap.
• Inspector’s decision: Dismissed
  
  • The appeal failed, meaning there’s no blanket lawful right for delayed or emergency flights beyond what’s specifically allowed under Condition 9.

Final Outcomes (Inspector’s Decision – 18 July 2025)

• Only Appeal B succeeded: a lawful certificate was issued confirming that exempt aircraft may operate at night.
• Appeals A and C were dismissed, meaning restrictions on QC 0.25 planes and unapproved delayed/emergency landings remain enforceable.

Implications

• Airport operators may continue flying small, quiet propeller aircraft at night lawfully.
• However, quieter jet aircraft (QC 0.25) and delayed/emergency flights do not benefit from immunity and remain subject to planning enforcement.

This doesn’t prevent the airport from applying for formal planning permission in future to expand or clarify night operations. But under current permissions, only exempt aircraft have a clear legal basis for night use.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Absolutely not wishing to add fuel to the fire but LBA surely have got to try and get this decision changed somehow otherwise I cannot see EasyJet setting up a base as there operating model requires much more flexibility with operating hours.

Just checked last nights ops.at BHX (which is NOT in an isolated spot but sits right on the city boundaries)and all five based EasyJet aircraft returned between 23:10 and 02;40.
This morning there are three departures for them before 07;00.


Jet2 and others must be scratching their heads as well and should put a joint case together.along with the airport and major local businesses.

I cant see a U turn on the decision.

It seems the original agreement was amended to increase the number of night flights allowed so theres nothing to stop the airport applying to raise that again. Alternatively a completely new agreement could be sought.

The existing agreement is really outdated and doesnt reflect the current reality of how aviation works and I think LCC would find it hard to reject a modernised agreement, however the presence of a well organised opposition and no organised support means its far from a foregone conclusion.

I have no legal training whatsoever and these are just my uneducated thoughts.

 

[Statto]

I cant see a U turn on the decision.

It seems the original agreement was amended to increase the number of night flights allowed so theres nothing to stop the airport applying to raise that again. Alternatively a completely new agreement could be sought.

The existing agreement is really outdated and doesnt reflect the current reality of how aviation works and I think LCC would find it hard to reject a modernised agreement, however the presence of a well organised opposition and no organised support means its far from a foregone conclusion.

I have no legal training whatsoever and these are just my uneducated thoughts.

Regardless of the outcome of the CLUED process, the airport has to submit a new planning application anyway within 12 months of achieving 4.5m passengers. The purpose of that probably won’t be for more physical infrastructure but to effectively renegotiate all the existing planning conditions, transport contributions etc to support growth beyond 5m passengers. Night flying restrictions will inevitably be part of that. Of course, success with the CLUEDs might have given the airport a stronger hand to play, but the impression being given from some posters that the CLUEDs would have given the airport a ‘blank cheque’ for unrestrained growth is just not the case (in my opinion anyway). And it must surely be obvious that the airport is laying the ground for the planning application. At the end of May its rolling passenger total is 4.363m so just 137,000 away from the 4.5m trigger; hence no doubt why we are seeing a ramp up in the roadshows and the engagement with the local public.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Regardless of the outcome of the CLUED process, the airport has to submit a new planning application anyway within 12 months of achieving 4.5m passengers. The purpose of that probably won’t be for more physical infrastructure but to effectively renegotiate all the existing planning conditions, transport contributions etc to support growth beyond 5m passengers. Night flying restrictions will inevitably be part of that. Of course, success with the CLUEDs might have given the airport a stronger hand to play, but the impression being given from some posters that the CLUEDs would have given the airport a ‘blank cheque’ for unrestrained growth is just not the case (in my opinion anyway). And it must surely be obvious that the airport is laying the ground for the planning application. At the end of May its rolling passenger total is 4.363m so just 137,000 away from the 4.5m trigger; hence no doubt why we are seeing a ramp up in the roadshows and the engagement with the local public.

I respect your opinion. Lets hope you are correct.

 

[Finger66]

Isn't it ironic though that the jets with a 0.25QC are actually quieter than most props. To me it really does show that LBA is at an unfair commercial disadvantage to others and certain people will stand in its way regardless.
Frustrating, annoying, upsetting and all other relevant wording.

 

[White Heather]

I've never seen anything that says that the clock is reset if there is no breach within 30 days! Presumably neither had the airport or their legal advisors, as they spent a lot of time pulling together the evidence on that, and all to have it dismissed on a technicality.

There is no doubt in my mind that LBA and their expert advisors will be in crisis mode now, crawling all over this decision to see if there is scope for an appeal, and if not, considering the next steps which has to be a planning application. At the very least, they need night hours in Leeds to match those at other airports. Its high time the Government standardised the definition of night time at airports to level the playing field. Changing night to 0600-2330 would itself make a big difference, although on its own still not enough given the number of Jet2 movements overnight, and the frequency of delayed flights on top.

It will be interesting to see what LCC and LBA do now. Currently all is operating as normal but what happens when they reach 2920? Imagine the furore when flights are either diverted every night or cancelled. Perhaps such an event might demonstrate the ensuing chaos and show LCC planners how vital this is not only for the airport, but passengers, airlines, and jobs.

Only in Leeds!!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I've never seen anything that says that the clock is reset if there is no breach within 30 days! Presumably neither had the airport or their legal advisors, as they spent a lot of time pulling together the evidence on that, and all to have it dismissed on a technicality.

There is no doubt in my mind that LBA and their expert advisors will be in crisis mode now, crawling all over this decision to see if there is scope for an appeal, and if not, considering the next steps which has to be a planning application. At the very least, they need night hours in Leeds to match those at other airports. Its high time the Government standardised the definition of night time at airports to level the playing field. Changing night to 0600-2330 would itself make a big difference, although on its own still not enough given the number of Jet2 movements overnight, and the frequency of delayed flights on top.

It will be interesting to see what LCC and LBA do now. Currently all is operating as normal but what happens when they reach 2920? Imagine the furore when flights are either diverted every night or cancelled. Perhaps such an event might demonstrate the ensuing chaos and show LCC planners how vital this is not only for the airport, but passengers, airlines, and jobs.

Only in Leeds!!

The 30 day matter was decided on precedent if I renember correctly.

If diversions happen after the cap is reached the anti airport people will just say its of the airports own making

 

[HX3]

I would think if the 30 day rule is not explicit in documentation, then that would be the first point to appeal. If it is, and has not been applied elsewhere ( i.e president from another airport) then that again may be cause for appeal.

VH needs to be speaking to Rachel Reeves to get her onboard for a planning application and making sure the council expedite it.

If I had the cash I would charter a turbo prop and have it circle legally for hours over the unnamed HQ - day after day 😜🤣🤣

 

[Statto]

There is no doubt in my mind that LBA and their expert advisors will be in crisis mode now, crawling all over this decision to see if there is scope for an appeal, and if not, considering the next steps which has to be a planning application.

The council originally refused the CLUEDs over a year ago now, so should there be a crisis? They’ve known for a while that planning law did not support their argument. Fair enough, try and appeal it, which they did, but do we really believe they have staked the fortunes of the business on the outcome of an appeal to the planning inspector? What I see is a business investing significant amounts of money into the airport supported by a very significant financing package from the major banks and that a great deal of this activity has happened *after* the council rejected the CLUEDs. So either a lot of people have been very reckless with a lot of money - or this CLUED thing isn’t really an ‘all or nothing’ moment.

 

[JRP]

So in a nutshell
The airport can operate as many propeller planes in the night as it likes even though they are louder than a max or a neo?

Bring it on let’s all get a fleet of noisy props and fly them all night, god I wish I won the euro millions

Anyway back to subject it just shows you how outdated this country is, am sure the airport will win in the end just will take a little longer than planned

Anyone no where the clowns live from the group we don’t name I will go rec my motorbike up at 3 in the morning in h

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I would think if the 30 day rule is not explicit in documentation, then that would be the first point to appeal. If it is, and has not been applied elsewhere ( i.e president from another airport) then that again may be cause for appeal.

VH needs to be speaking to Rachel Reeves to get her onboard for a planning application and making sure the council expedite it.

If I had the cash I would charter a turbo prop and have it circle legally for hours over the unnamed HQ - day after day 😜🤣🤣

Rachel Reeves, Katie White and Tracy Brabin.

So in a nutshell
The airport can operate as many propeller planes in the night as it likes even though they are louder than a max or a neo?

Bring it on let’s all get a fleet of noisy props and fly them all night, god I wish I won the euro millions

Anyway back to subject it just shows you how outdated this country is, am sure the airport will win in the end just will take a little longer than planned

Anyone no where the clowns live from the group we don’t name I will go rec my motorbike up at 3 in the morning in h

No, if you read the document you will see theres a weight limit.

 

[Len Fish]

Quite ironic that the supposedly green
“those who should not be named” opposed a state of the art “green terminal” and now have a less green one and now have ensured the residents near the airport are stuck with the older, noisier aircraft with no incentive for the airlines to use their newer quieter ones, especially at night.

 

[Aviador]

So all the airport needs to do is submit a new planning application specifically for aircraft quieter than 0.25 and demonstrate that those aircraft are quieter than the noisy prop aircraft than can already operate unrestricted?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

So all the airport needs to do is submit a new planning application specifically for aircraft quieter than 0.25 and demonstrate that those aircraft are quieter than the noisy prop aircraft than can already operate unrestricted?

Tongue in cheek?

 

[LsS27]

Would a Judicial Revue be appropriate in this case?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Would a Judicial Revue be appropriate in this case?

If it can be proved the legal process was deviated from, but to a layman like me it looks like it was.

Remember the inspector's reputation rests on her reports and given she can have expected this report to receive detailed scrutiny she seems to have dotted the i' and crossed the t's.

You need to read the document and let us know what your informed opinion is.

 

[Statto]

The CLUEDs were first submitted to the council on 6 September 2023. In September 2023, the airport probably assumed they were 3 years away from triggering the “within 12 months of reaching 4.5m passengers….” planning application. The expectation was that the council would give a decision in 6-8 weeks, so I think you have to look at it through that lens and why the CLUED approach made sense at the time.

But its taken nearly 2 years to get to this stage, and the airport is now much closer to triggering the 4.5m passenger limit and the need for a new planning application. On that basis, prolonging the CLUED process for another few years - with an ever decreasing likelihood of success - doesn’t make much sense to me. But I guess we’ll wait and see.