Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[Statto]

The officer report for the most recent decision is available on the public access site. I would describe it as very technical and also very tetchy. The technical arguments are:

- the council argues that the condition applies every night and so the because the airport can’t demonstrate it has been broken every night, there has not been a continuous breach
- Similar to that, there is a technical argument that there were long gaps between individual events. Up to 300 days between a QC1 movement at night and the next one. The argument here seems to be that due to the infrequent occurrences, the council couldn't possibly enforce the condition.
- There is a debate over a Hercules departure in 2012, which the airport claim is QC1 and the Council can't find evidence to prove it is (because their usual sources for civilian aircraft doesn't include it, naturally). As the Herc was the only claimed QC1 departure in 2012, then if proven not to be Qc1, then it breaks the 10 year chain, even if the council lose the argument on the other points.

The tetchy points are various points relating to "if this goes to appeal, we will raise these points.....". These seem to mainly relate to the quality and consistency of reporting between 2008 and 2014 when movements reported as QC 0.5 back then, have been classified as Qc 1.0 in the CLUED application.

It all seems a complete mess tbh. It's obvious the council are determined not to approve these. An appeal will drag it out for months, if not longer. All the while, they could just sit down and draw up what a new set of rules should look like for the 21st century with a quota system that actually incentivises and favours Qc 0.25 movements and put this through planning.

 

[White Heather]

The officer report for the most recent decision is available on the public access site. I would describe it as very technical and also very tetchy. The technical arguments are:

- the council argues that the condition applies every night and so the because the airport can’t demonstrate it has been broken every night, there has not been a continuous breach
- Similar to that, there is a technical argument that there were long gaps between individual events. Up to 300 days between a QC1 movement at night and the next one. The argument here seems to be that due to the infrequent occurrences, the council couldn't possibly enforce the condition.
- There is a debate over a Hercules departure in 2012, which the airport claim is QC1 and the Council can't find evidence to prove it is (because their usual sources for civilian aircraft doesn't include it, naturally). As the Herc was the only claimed QC1 departure in 2012, then if proven not to be Qc1, then it breaks the 10 year chain, even if the council lose the argument on the other points.

The tetchy points are various points relating to "if this goes to appeal, we will raise these points.....". These seem to mainly relate to the quality and consistency of reporting between 2008 and 2014 when movements reported as QC 0.5 back then, have been classified as Qc 1.0 in the CLUED application.

It all seems a complete mess tbh. It's obvious the council are determined not to approve these. An appeal will drag it out for months, if not longer. All the while, they could just sit down and draw up what a new set of rules should look like for the 21st century with a quota system that actually incentivises and favours Qc 0.25 movements and put this through planning.

They could indeed, but that that would require a planning application, and we all know where that would lead.

Frankly the council claiming that a failure to breach the rules every night is semantics. They're playing silly sods. I'm pretty sure LBAs submission included case law covering this so their legal advice clearly anticipated this argument, but to me it smacks of desperation by the Council because they know the whole mess has their incompetence stamped all over it.

It's clearly better to have more QC 0.25 aircraft at night and recent noise surveys have demonstrated a considerable reduction in homes subject to the higher noise levels over the last year, but the Council seem to be doing their best to discourage airlines from using them.

We all know that the vast majority of night movements are Jet2. They are the airline to be disrupted most by strict implementation of the rules according to LCC.. and this will do nothing to encourage them to base their new A321 NEOs, so night noise might be less in number, but what there is will be if greater consequence.

You couldn't make it up, except, this is Leeds, and LBA, and it seems the Council is going back to the dark days if doing it's best to prevent it's own airport being a success.

 

[Len Fish]

Unfortunately politics is all about saving face and passing the buck. This is a prime example and LCC are masters of it as regards LBA.

 

[Snackbar]

They could indeed, but that that would require a planning application, and we all know where that would lead.

Frankly the council claiming that a failure to breach the rules every night is semantics. They're playing silly sods. I'm pretty sure LBAs submission included case law covering this so their legal advice clearly anticipated this argument, but to me it smacks of desperation by the Council because they know the whole mess has their incompetence stamped all over it.

It's clearly better to have more QC 0.25 aircraft at night and recent noise surveys have demonstrated a considerable reduction in homes subject to the higher noise levels over the last year, but the Council seem to be doing their best to discourage airlines from using them.

We all know that the vast majority of night movements are Jet2. They are the airline to be disrupted most by strict implementation of the rules according to LCC.. and this will do nothing to encourage them to base their new A321 NEOs, so night noise might be less in number, but what there is will be if greater consequence.

You couldn't make it up, except, this is Leeds, and LBA, and it seems the Council is going back to the dark days if doing it's best to prevent it's own airport being a success.

The positive is that this will now be taken out of the Councils hands so will be assessed independently. If the appeal to the planning inspectorate then fails the airport can take it to a judicial review at the High Court! Expect this one to run and run….
Just to add LCC planning dept have a poor record at going to JR! The airport if successful will be awarded costs paid for of course by the Council tax payers of Leeds!! It’s time the Council grew some and stopped taking notice of the vocal minority and stood up for the good of the city!

 

[northsouth]

Sadly in my view this is what I thaught would happen like all comments this is a mess LCC can’t make their minds up to save face but do they realise that the more they try a cap LBA (which is currently going through a 100 million of private investment ) new potential business will go elsewhere just look at what’s happing down the road They have support from the local council ,MP public tax payers Money !!!!! And more
Interesting to see how Lba go from here in the short term would it be buisness as usual until any appeals are determined

 

[White Heather]

The positive is that this will now be taken out of the Councils hands so will be assessed independently. If the appeal to the planning inspectorate then fails the airport can take it to a judicial review at the High Court! Expect this one to run and run….
Just to add LCC planning dept have a poor record at going to JR! The airport if successful will be awarded costs paid for of course by the Council tax payers of Leeds!! It’s time the Council grew some and stopped taking notice of the vocal minority and stood up for the good of the city!

And while it runs and runs, LBA will exceed the council's limits, the impasse continues, they who have nothing better to do will complain, the BBC Transport Correspondent will give them airtime, and the Council will take no further action , so the whole thing is a bureaucratic charade which could end up costing a lot of money.

Clearly common sense is in somewhat short supply within the corridors of Leeds Civic Hall. Incidentally, none of the Leeds Councillors commented on this at the meeting.

 

[SierraHotel]

Broken Britain at it's finest. It's laughably ridiculous.

 

[Len Fish]

The maximum fine that can be levied on conviction of exceeding the limit is £2500 which last time around the Council did not pursue due to the cost not being in the public interest. This means in reality, even if LBA were actually prosecuted and fined, they could just cheerfully go on breaking the limit by pleading guilty, stumping up the fine and perhaps having to pay LCC’s costs. It would still be cheap at the price to continue the current practice! A bit like the millionaires who consistently park on double yellow lines outside Harrods. They accept the small parking fines as it’s a bargain to them to be able to park directly outside.

 

[White Heather]

The maximum fine that can be levied on conviction of exceeding the limit is £2500 which last time around the Council did not pursue due to the cost not being in the public interest. This means in reality, even if LBA were actually prosecuted and fined, they could just cheerfully go on breaking the limit by pleading guilty, stumping up the fine and perhaps having to pay LCC’s costs. It would still be cheap at the price to continue the current practice! A bit like the millionaires who consistently park on double yellow lines outside Harrods. They accept the small parking fines as it’s a bargain to them to be able to park directly outside.

I hope they carry on regardless. I'm sure the vast majority support the airport and are as sick and tired of the tree huggers and group not to be named as I am .

 

[Aviador]

The quota system is meant to mirror the London system so they should just say we will continue to observe and follow the system it was disigned on, not the rules LCC choose to make up a they go along.

 

[White Heather]

The quota system is meant to mirror the London system so they should just say we will continue to observe and follow the system it was disigned on, not the rules LCC choose to make up a they go along.

Exactly. The London system has been updated to reflect new technology aircraft in accordance with the NOTAM updates - the very same that are mentioned apparently in the LBA planning approval but which LCC seem to disregard completely.

 

[LBA4EVER]

The maximum fine that can be levied on conviction of exceeding the limit is £2500 which last time around the Council did not pursue due to the cost not being in the public interest. This means in reality, even if LBA were actually prosecuted and fined, they could just cheerfully go on breaking the limit by pleading guilty, stumping up the fine and perhaps having to pay LCC’s costs. It would still be cheap at the price to continue the current practice! A bit like the millionaires who consistently park on double yellow lines outside Harrods. They accept the small parking fines as it’s a bargain to them to be able to park directly outside.

Plus they get to show off their Ferrari, lambos and bugattis etc haha

 

[Seasider]

I wouldn't want a Ferrari - it wouldn't fit in my garage!

 

[Snackbar]

They could indeed, but that that would require a planning application, and we all know where that would lead.

Frankly the council claiming that a failure to breach the rules every night is semantics. They're playing silly sods. I'm pretty sure LBAs submission included case law covering this so their legal advice clearly anticipated this argument, but to me it smacks of desperation by the Council because they know the whole mess has their incompetence stamped all over it.

It's clearly better to have more QC 0.25 aircraft at night and recent noise surveys have demonstrated a considerable reduction in homes subject to the higher noise levels over the last year, but the Council seem to be doing their best to discourage airlines from using them.

We all know that the vast majority of night movements are Jet2. They are the airline to be disrupted most by strict implementation of the rules according to LCC.. and this will do nothing to encourage them to base their new A321 NEOs, so night noise might be less in number, but what there is will be if greater consequence.

You couldn't make it up, except, this is Leeds, and LBA, and it seems the Council is going back to the dark days if doing it's best to prevent it's own airport being a success.

The positive is that this will now be taken out of the Councils hands so will be assessed independently. If the appeal to the planning inspectorate then fails the airport can stake it to a judicial review at the High Court! Expect this one to run and run…..

And while it runs

The maximum fine that can be levied on conviction of exceeding the limit is £2500 which last time around the Council did not pursue due to the cost not being in the public interest. This means in reality, even if LBA were actually prosecuted and fined, they could just cheerfully go on breaking the limit by pleading guilty, stumping up the fine and perhaps having to pay LCC’s costs. It would still be cheap at the price to continue the current practice! A bit like the millionaires who consistently park on double yellow lines outside Harrods. They accept the small parking fines as it’s a bargain to them to be able to park directly outside.

Not sure that’s quite correct - for a persistent breach the Council could seek an injunction and the penalty can be far higher…

 

[White Heather]

Not sure that’s quite correct - for a persistent breach the Council could seek an injunction and the penalty can be far higher…
[/QUOTE]
However, if the Council chooses not to take enforcement action itself it would look rather odd if having done nothing to enforce their interpretation they then suddenly seek an injunction.

I still hold the view that actually the Council don't really want to take action for whatever reason, nor do they want to be seen by the anti airport lobby as allowing LBA to fly more at night, so it maybe suits them to just let someone else make the decision.

The sickener for me is that all of this would be resolved now had the airport been able to go ahead with the new terminal given the approval also changed the definition of night time. It seems rather daft that the same council that approved those changes is now seeking to enforce the old rules and being very pedantic about the meaning of some parts of the original planning approval.

 

[Aviador]

Considering much of Leeds is becoming deprived and in need of investment you would think the council would be falling over themselves to get the investment the airport is bringing and encouraging more.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I wouldn't want a Ferrari - it wouldn't fit in my garage!

Same here, so will stick with my baby ferrari, wh will know what i mean haha

Considering much of Leeds is becoming deprived and in need of investment you would think the council would be falling over themselves to get the investment the airport is bringing and encouraging more.

The south and east of leeds is becoming more deprived, think we all know why!

 

[paully]

LCC are a majority uber leftie outfit for whom LBA are an anathema, in their political right on dogma. When you indulge in such juvenile politics the reality of jobs, wealth creation and greater good are not something they are prepared to consider, because they have an attitude that they know best and they are the ones with the power and everyone else doesn`t..The saving grace is that they are so up themselves they are as thick as mince and incapable of listening to reason.

LBA management and their expensive lawyers will be well used to dealing with these Jodrills and having given them enough rope, as it appears they now have, they will slowly but surely hoist them on the petard of public humiliation...We must remain patient, but I`m confident that such patience will be rewarded..............for us of course.

 

[White Heather]

LCC are a majority uber leftie outfit for whom LBA are an anathema, in their political right on dogma. When you indulge in such juvenile politics the reality of jobs, wealth creation and greater good are not something they are prepared to consider, because they have an attitude that they know best and they are the ones with the power and everyone else doesn`t..The saving grace is that they are so up themselves they are as thick as mince and incapable of listening to reason.

LBA management and their expensive lawyers will be well used to dealing with these Jodrills and having given them enough rope, as it appears they now have, they will slowly but surely hoist them on the petard of public humiliation...We must remain patient, but I`m confident that such patience will be rewarded..............for us of course.

I truly hope you're right.

 

[LBA4EVER]

LCC are a majority uber leftie outfit for whom LBA are an anathema, in their political right on dogma. When you indulge in such juvenile politics the reality of jobs, wealth creation and greater good are not something they are prepared to consider, because they have an attitude that they know best and they are the ones with the power and everyone else doesn`t..The saving grace is that they are so up themselves they are as thick as mince and incapable of listening to reason.

LBA management and their expensive lawyers will be well used to dealing with these Jodrills and having given them enough rope, as it appears they now have, they will slowly but surely hoist them on the petard of public humiliation...We must remain patient, but I`m confident that such patience will be rewarded..............for us of course.

A spot on post! So true! I like most others get sick to death of this leftie way of thinking!