Leeds Bradford Airport’s Expansion Plans Under Public Inquiry

[Statto]

Am I reading it right?

Probably not. These are the 1993 planning conditions and the planning inspector has been asked to provide an opinion on how they should be interpreted. The judgement is an assessment on planning law and interpretation. Nothing to do with climate extremism or , for that matter, denial

 

[White Heather]

Damn right. Well not broken Britain.

Just broken Leeds council, Brian dead Labour morons in the council, and heavily bribed tossers taking back handers from anti aviation see you next Tuesdays.

Am I reading it right?

We cannot take an emergency during “night period” because some moronic climate change cultists sat and said no? This council is seriously deluded and dangerous.

I’d happily stand in front of them all and rip them a new one. Verbally. Of course.

To a degree you're right, but it's important you also blame the Labour Council back in the 90s as its they who somewhat begrudgingly approved H24, but included these various provisions within the approval. The current planners will tell you that they didnt make the rules, they're just implementing them as intended (according to their interpretation), and if LBA dont like them, they can always submit a planning application to change them.

LBA don't agree their interpretation and for what it's worth, I can see why. I'm gobsmacked the inspector hasn't approved the appeals and it'll be interesting to see why. But then I have zero faith in any politician or process in which they're involved, however remotely, so nothing really surprises me and I've seen it all before when it comes to LBA. Of course had Leeds Planning simply approved the CLEUDs, none if thos might have been necessary except for the fact that they who shall not be named would probably have taken legal action anyway had they done so.

 

[HX3]

It’ll be interesting to understand the legal grounds why the 2 CLEUD were not supported by the planning inspector. The detail in post 29 is useful in relation to the outcome, but not why. As ever the devil is in the detail, so maybe there is still hope to get this sh*te overturned.

 

[Len Fish]

Has any official announcement been made because I don’t regard a Facebook post by local Clowncillors as anything like official? Have these clowns leaked the decisions in advance of the Independent Planning Inspector doing so? If they have they need a good kick up the proverbial.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Has any official announcement been made because I don’t regard a Facebook post by local Clowncillors as anything like official? Have these clowns leaked the decisions in advance of the Independent Planning Inspector doing so? If they have they need a good kick up the proverbial.

I agree, we should really wait for the official announcement.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Probably not. These are the 1993 planning conditions and the planning inspector has been asked to provide an opinion on how they should be interpreted. The judgement is an assessment on planning law and interpretation. Nothing to do with climate extremism or , for that matter, denial

So I’ll ask again am I reading that right?

If there is an emergency (or more importantly storms across the U.K. and LBA can accept diverts) we can’t do after a certain time?

Yet again proving why this council is dangerous. And always has been.

 

[JRP]

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/files/55C52A25CFCF812FEAA797FF0CEB7C59/pdf/23_07490_CLE--6068230.pdf

A long read but it’s there for all to see

 

[Statto]

If there is an emergency (or more importantly storms across the U.K. and LBA can accept diverts) we can’t do after a certain time?

The airport is a 24H airport, so yes, of course emergency flights can land at any time. All of these applications are about what flights count or don’t count towards the night flying quota.

 

[White Heather]

So I’ll ask again am I reading that right?

If there is an emergency (or more importantly storms across the U.K. and LBA can accept diverts) we can’t do after a certain time?

Yet again proving why this council is dangerous. And always has been.

We are open 24 hours, so we can accept emergencies provided the aircraft is not of a type that is banned (of which there are very few) but they would count against our quota. That's my reading of it. Basically, everything counts against the quota. No exceptions.

Clearly now the summer quota, which is usually 2920 night movements, is totally inadequate. To operate as we do now they're going to need around 4000. Good luck with any planning application to get that. This is Leeds, not Solihull where, Birmingham just got their night movement limit increased as it was no longer sufficient. Jet2 will have had a lot to do with that too.

 

[HX3]

Thanks for the link @JRP. - the link for me shows unavailable at this time. So maybe they've taken it down?

 

[LsS27]

You are quite right WH about the fact that the planners say that they on't make the rules. They look at the rules and then push them in the direction they think fit. Like any rules, you have to look at was is not mentioned in those rules. The rules are not always black and white.

 

[JRP]

Thanks for the link @JRP. - the link for me shows unavailable at this time. So maybe they've taken it down?

If the link does not work you can access it on the planning portal
Think it’s a 34 page document dated 18th July

 

[HX3]

Thanks @JRP

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Thanks for the link @JRP. - the link for me shows unavailable at this time. So maybe they've taken it down?

Yes, looks like they have.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I can’t believe there is some form of rejection to NEO/MAX. And Leeds isn’t even thinking about that and the advancements in aircraft engine technology.

Leeds again suffers because the lack of forward thinking by our Labour lead council and the idiots that are our MP’s.

Seriously bring on local election next year. I’m not the biggest reform fan but anything to get rid of this bunch of dinosaur relics, backward looking, brain dead, morons. And I’ll happily tell them that to all their faces.

Let’s hope the high court repeal this stupid idiotic limit on economic growth.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I can’t believe there is some form of rejection to NEO/MAX. And Leeds isn’t even thinking about that and the advancements in aircraft engine technology.

Leeds again suffers because the lack of forward thinking by our Labour lead council and the idiots that are our MP’s.

Seriously bring on local election next year. I’m not the biggest reform fan but anything to get rid of this bunch of dinosaur relics, backward looking, brain dead, morons. And I’ll happily tell them that to all their faces.

Let’s hope the high court repeal this stupid idiotic limit on economic growth.

Labour are more pro airport than any previous government in recent years.

If a high court route is decided upon how long will it take and what happens in the meantime- compliance with the public enquiry (PE) findings?

Theres a good chance the High Court will agree with the council and PE by which time the government could have changed. I think the best chance of varying the conditions is under this government so lets get the ball rolling.

 

[White Heather]

You are quite right WH about the fact that the planners say that they on't make the rules. They look at the rules and then push them in the direction they think fit. Like any rules, you have to look at was is not mentioned in those rules. The rules are not always black and white.

Exactly. The rules in this case were somewhat unclear and ambiguously written by LCC (Quel surprise). LCC as per usual, decided to interpret them in a way that prevents further growth in night flying, insisting the rules from 1993 apply.

LBA did the opposite. Personally, I side with LBA, not because Im a fan of the airport, but because using my own experience and limited legal training relative to planning consents, it's clear to me that the intention was that the 1993 NOTAMs which set out aircraft and their Quota Counts, should be replaced by updated NOTAMs when available , reflecting new generation aircraft. Exactly as has happened at London airports. Including reference to future updates makes no sense if they are to be ignored anyway. You simply wouldn't refer to updated NOTAMs at all if you werent going to apply those updates.

But here we are again, with an inspector opposing what seems clear, and also dismissing the fact that for more than 10 years, LBA has 'broken the rules', have the evidence to prove it, the Council have failed to enforce them, so under the law they should now lose the right to do so. I want to see what technicality they've used to skirt around what is a very basic planning law.

Am I surprised? Not at all. Once again LBA has been stitched up like a kipper.

 

[Aviador]

Can they not just put a planning application in?
If this was approved before with the planned new terminal how could they reject it this time? I Jo it’s a different application but can say look you approved this before

Bare in mind the likes of Sentinel had been operating for years without planning permission and they were allowed to continue as they were already operating as a car park. Rightly or wrongly regardless of a persons view on whether they should or shouldn't, the airport has been operating this way since it was owned by the five local authorities. There is nothing clearer than that and clearly a case to be perused further.

 

[HX3]

I’m not normally negative when it comes to my adopted home, I chose to live here and I don’t believe it is my right to be overly critical. However, I am going to make an exception in this instance.
Local and central government politicians and legal representatives seem more likely to back a failed airport requiring hundreds of millions of tax payers money, with no guarantee that history of failure won’t repeat at DSA. In contrast, we have a profitable, privately run business, currently the sole airport for the region, growing and economically performing for the region, employees and customers; yet politicians and legal representatives appear to go against common sense and legal precedents set elsewhere in the country and look to block a sensible approach to growth.
That is a particularly peculiar English thing and something that limits potential- this saddens me as it has absolutely no positive impact on the region or the people living here.

 

[Seasider]

Post 29 from lbaspotter

I have read post 29 on 3 occasions now and I can see how people are reading it in a negative way.
I can't understand why these 3 councillors have "published" what the planning inspector has decided.
It begs the question
1. How do they know the planning inspector's decision?
2. Are all councillors privy to this information, if so why haven't more of them published it, especially councillors who oppose the Airport?
3. Are these 3 councillors opposed to the Airport.
4. Am I correct in assuming the inspector has no connection with LCC and is totally objective?
5. Can I expect LBA to become the airport Yorkshire deserves, and needs, in my lifetime? (I'm75)