Leeds Bradford: Airport Consultative Committee Questions & Responses

[White Heather]

It may be an obvious question, and I’m probably forgetting some detail, but would this option not have been a better first option, rather than going down the CLEUD route?

Quite possibly. I got the impression that until it was suggested, LBA were not aware it was an option. I may be wrong but it felt that way. On the other hand, perhaps it was necessary to understand the correct interpretation of the planning consent before going down this route.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Yes, I thought so and I recall him on about airport contributions to something that was nothing much to do with LBA. He couldn't have his way so refused to support it. Personally, I've never forgiven him!!

I talk to him when I bump into him. I dont think he is anti airport, but as probably the senior member of the planning committee he has to be impartial.
Planning is a real passion of his, its more than a job.

I believe at a recent ACC he suggested the airport de-couple the flying restrictions from the planning permission, is this effectively what is happening now?

 

[White Heather]

I talk to him when I bump into him. I dont think he is anti airport, but as probably the senior member of the planning committee he has to be impartial.
Planning is a real passion of his, its more than a job.

I believe at a recent ACC he suggested the airport de-couple the flying restrictions from the planning permission, is this effectively what is happening now?

Im not sure if that's exactly what's happening or not to be honest. I am hoping that bearing in mind his suggestion of a way forward after the CLEUD debacle, he will support LBA now they've done as he suggested, otherwise it would feel like a set up.
It was the March or JUNE ACC when he suggested this. He wasn't at the last one.
I hope next time you see him you make sure that he knows the level of support for this and sees the benefits outweigh the objections of a group of self centred NIMBYS. He really needs to support this!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Im not sure if that's exactly what's happening or not to be honest. I am hoping that bearing in mind his suggestion of a way forward after the CLEUD debacle, he will support LBA now they've done as he suggested, otherwise it would feel like a set up.
It was the March or JUNE ACC when he suggested this. He wasn't at the last one.
I hope next time you see him you make sure that he knows the level of support for this and sees the benefits outweigh the objections of a group of self centred NIMBYS. He really needs to support thi

He's not in any doubt don't worry. If I dont bump into him I will phone him after the 7th.

I got the impression that his suggestion of de-coupling was given in good faith.

I also get the impression from attending the community meetings that despite 'losing' the CLEUD's, there were some key clarifications in the judgement that will help significantly in taking the matter further.

 

[White Heather]

He's not in any doubt don't worry. If I dont bump into him I will phone him after the 7th.

I got the impression that his suggestion of de-coupling was given in good faith.

I also get the impression from attending the community meetings that despite 'losing' the CLEUD's, there were some key clarifications in the judgement that will help significantly in taking the matter further.

As a senior member of the plans panel let's hope he has some influence over those who its possible to influence. Some will be a lost cause.

 

[airforced]

As I mentioned not too long ago in a previous post the fact that LCC express their supprt for the airport is all very well but doing that in words alone is very cheap whereas following that up with actions is a little more difficult. Let's hope that these further words of 'support' are now followed up with some action to prove the point. I'm not decrying this latest statement but will believe it when I see the action.

 

[White Heather]

As I mentioned not too long ago in a previous post the fact that LCC express their supprt for the airport is all very well but doing that in words alone is very cheap whereas following that up with actions is a little more difficult. Let's hope that these further words of 'support' are now followed up with some action to prove the point. I'm not decrying this latest statement but will believe it when I see the action.

But as I've mentioned numerous times, Leeds City Council have approved every LBA planning application since 1994 . Yes, they've made hard work of it but given the green members on the plans panel there will always be dissenters. But they've got there in the end.

The critical thing with this is, that if approved, an annual average noise exposure limit will need to be agreed unless there's some government/CAA approved standard limit that applies at all airports, which I doubt. Its no good approving this then introducing punitive restrictions that are no good to anyone other than the NIMBYs..

 

[HX3]

If approved, and if there are no set CAA/government targets, LCC could use Liverpool as a template. Their monitoring has been in place a while, the airport is a similar size to LBA, has the same main operators and is surrounded on the land side by urban development (granted some of their approach is out over the Mersey). So they are in an urban setting with neighbours just like LBA.

They will have statistical information over a period of time to show how achievable the noise exposure limit is and the number of breaches etc. So LBA/LCC could use this as a workable template and likely adapt to their annual movements etc.

I previously shared detail on LPL’s monitoring rules and all was extremely reasonable and sensible.

 

[Statto]

The Department of Transport posted this earlier today…

A third runway at Heathrow is one step closer to take-off ✈️

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has launched a review of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which will provide the framework for deciding future planning applications for expansion at Heathrow Airport.

The swift and robust review will ensure that any future development:

✅ Aligns with our legal, environmental, and climate commitments
✅ Supports jobs, growth, and investment
✅ Boosts the UK’s global connectivity

We’re committed to backing aviation projects that will grow the economy, provide highly skilled jobs, and help deliver the Plan for Change.

Read more:

Plans for Heathrow expansion accelerate as Transport Secretary unveils next steps

Enabling Heathrow expansion will drive economic growth and create jobs across the country.

www.gov.uk

 

[White Heather]

The Department of Transport posted this earlier today…

A third runway at Heathrow is one step closer to take-off ✈️

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has launched a review of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which will provide the framework for deciding future planning applications for expansion at Heathrow Airport.

The swift and robust review will ensure that any future development:

✅ Aligns with our legal, environmental, and climate commitments
✅ Supports jobs, growth, and investment
✅ Boosts the UK’s global connectivity

We’re committed to backing aviation projects that will grow the economy, provide highly skilled jobs, and help deliver the Plan for Change.
Ì
Read more:

Plans for Heathrow expansion accelerate as Transport Secretary unveils next steps

Enabling Heathrow expansion will drive economic growth and create jobs across the country.

www.gov.uk

The statement at B seems unfinished. Surely it should finish with 'except at Leeds Bradford (obviously)'.

 

[Aviador]

A familiar narrative is being mobilised by the group opposed to LBA's growth. A recent story in the Ilkley Gazette, headlined "Campaigners say LBA is preparing fresh bid for night flights," serves as a prime example.

The language used is telling. The plural "campaigners" is designed to suggest a vast, unified opposition, while the phrase "fresh bid for night flights" creates a misleading impression that this is about introducing something new. In reality, night flights have been a feature of the airport's 30-year-old nighttime operations for decades. This isn't a "bid" for a new privilege; it's an application to manage an existing one far more effectively.
It’s a classic piece of scaremongering, relying on a 'David vs Goliath' framing that pits 'the people' against 'the airport'. This overlooks the crucial fact that the airport is a major local employer and a vital economic asset for our entire region. The proposed change is not about increasing noise, but quite the opposite,. It's a progressive system designed to actively discourage older, noisier aircraft in favour of their modern, quieter counterparts. This is a story of modernisation and responsible management, not the battle narrative some are so keen to promote.

 

[quik123]

A familiar narrative is being mobilised by the group opposed to LBA's growth. A recent story in the Ilkley Gazette, headlined "Campaigners say LBA is preparing fresh bid for night flights," serves as a prime example.

The language used is telling. The plural "campaigners" is designed to suggest a vast, unified opposition, while the phrase "fresh bid for night flights" creates a misleading impression that this is about introducing something new. In reality, night flights have been a feature of the airport's 30-year-old nighttime operations for decades. This isn't a "bid" for a new privilege; it's an application to manage an existing one far more effectively.
It’s a classic piece of scaremongering, relying on a 'David vs Goliath' framing that pits 'the people' against 'the airport'. This overlooks the crucial fact that the airport is a major local employer and a vital economic asset for our entire region. The proposed change is not about increasing noise, but quite the opposite,. It's a progressive system designed to actively discourage older, noisier aircraft in favour of their modern, quieter counterparts. This is a story of modernisation and responsible management, not the battle narrative some are so keen to promote.

Well written, but shouldn't it be directed at the original publisher? I've never engaged with local newspapers so perhaps you'd be wasting your time!

 

[LBAYORKIE]

A familiar narrative is being mobilised by the group opposed to LBA's growth. A recent story in the Ilkley Gazette, headlined "Campaigners say LBA is preparing fresh bid for night flights," serves as a prime example.

The language used is telling. The plural "campaigners" is designed to suggest a vast, unified opposition, while the phrase "fresh bid for night flights" creates a misleading impression that this is about introducing something new. In reality, night flights have been a feature of the airport's 30-year-old nighttime operations for decades. This isn't a "bid" for a new privilege; it's an application to manage an existing one far more effectively.
It’s a classic piece of scaremongering, relying on a 'David vs Goliath' framing that pits 'the people' against 'the airport'. This overlooks the crucial fact that the airport is a major local employer and a vital economic asset for our entire region. The proposed change is not about increasing noise, but quite the opposite,. It's a progressive system designed to actively discourage older, noisier aircraft in favour of their modern, quieter counterparts. This is a story of modernisation and responsible management, not the battle narrative some are so keen to promote.

Well we all need to get onto social media and counter their arguments. Nothing to be gained by simply observing.

 

[White Heather]

A familiar narrative is being mobilised by the group opposed to LBA's growth. A recent story in the Ilkley Gazette, headlined "Campaigners say LBA is preparing fresh bid for night flights," serves as a prime example.

The language used is telling. The plural "campaigners" is designed to suggest a vast, unified opposition, while the phrase "fresh bid for night flights" creates a misleading impression that this is about introducing something new. In reality, night flights have been a feature of the airport's 30-year-old nighttime operations for decades. This isn't a "bid" for a new privilege; it's an application to manage an existing one far more effectively.
It’s a classic piece of scaremongering, relying on a 'David vs Goliath' framing that pits 'the people' against 'the airport'. This overlooks the crucial fact that the airport is a major local employer and a vital economic asset for our entire region. The proposed change is not about increasing noise, but quite the opposite,. It's a progressive system designed to actively discourage older, noisier aircraft in favour of their modern, quieter counterparts. This is a story of modernisation and responsible management, not the battle narrative some are so keen to promote.

G****A will never let truth or facts get in the way of their anti airport narrative. They will rely on distortion of the facts to scare people into objecting. The vast majority of people have little to no understanding of how airports and airlines work, so are easily persuaded that lies are facts. Unfortunately, the press, particularly the one you mention and its neighbour in Otley ,seem to be intent on giving these people the publicity they crave.

 

[JRP]

Maybe jet2 should operate a fleet of 30 year old turbo probs and have 50 based at LBA
No restrictions on them ? 🤣

 

[Aviador]

Maybe jet2 should operate a fleet of 30 year old turbo probs and have 50 based at LBA
No restrictions on them ? 🤣

Maybe some Fokkers.

Maybe some Fokkers.

 

[Finger66]

Think we all know where and who the Fokkers are!

 

[Aviador]

Think we all know where and who the Fokkers are!

And there's no Friendship with them.

 

[Finger66]

They certainly think they have their own fellowship though!

 

[The Pole]

Maybe some Fokkers.

Loved these, the Air UK regularly did down wind left hand short final for 32 from Belfast when I was a kid, passed directly over our house when turning base. Don't get any interesting approaches nowadays!