News Updates
October 24 2025 • 6 minute read
GALBA exposes LBA’s new plan for more night flights and says keep the night flights cap, as MPs tell government airport expansions put net zero in "serious jeopardy".
Today, the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) is warning people of a new plan by Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) to abolish the rules that put a cap on the number of flights allowed at night. Campaigners estimate that summer season night flights could rise from 2,800 to well over 7,000.
GALBA has seen a briefing that LBA recently sent to councillors on a key Leeds planning committee. It says that the airport is going to make a new night flights planning application in November. The application aims to abolish the cap on night time flying, replacing it with an annual ‘noise quota count’. It also aims to increase unrestricted daytime flying hours by 90 minutes, meaning there would be no limit on the number of take-offs and landings between 6am and 11.30pm.
Nick Hodgkinson, Chair of GALBA, said: “Having failed several times before, the airport once again wants to change the night flight rules. This time they say it’s about reducing noise but that’s nonsense. It’s all about flying more and more planes at night, which means more noise and more pollution. We will fight LBA all the way. It’s a David vs Goliath struggle but we’ve won before and we will win again! ”
“From what we already know, LBA’s new plan to increase night time flying looks remarkably like their 2020 planning application, which they abandoned. So we have a pretty good idea how many more night flights would blight local communities and pollute our environment. We estimate there would be 8,250 night flights per year, up from 4,000 at present. Most of them – over 7,000 – would be crammed into the summer season, which currently has a cap of 2,800.”
“That sort of increase would mean far more frequent noise from planes taking off and landing, damaging the health of thousands of people who live under the flight path. It would also pollute the air we breathe and the climate we all depend on. And for what? To make more profit for LBA’s American owners and take more money out of our local economy to be spent abroad.”
GALBA’s warning comes on the same day that a committee of MPs has told the government that allowing airports to expand puts our duty to reach net zero emissions in “serious jeopardy”. The Environmental Audit Committee also concludes that “while expanding airport capacity is likely to provide some growth to the UK economy, the level of that growth is unclear and the government has failed to provide substantial supporting evidence.”
Ian Coatman, GALBA’s Secretary, said: “LBA claims that their plan would be better for local people and the environment because it would incentivise airlines to use newer, quieter and more fuel efficient planes. But that would only be true if there’s no increase in the current total number of flights allowed at night. That’s why we say ‘Keep the Cap!’ on night flights.”
“But we all know that LBA is obsessed with hugely increasing the number of night flights – no matter how bad the consequences. What’s more, airlines already have an incentive to buy newer planes, which they are in fact doing, because those planes save money on fuel.”
“Night flight noise is already a major public health problem and LBA wants to make it even worse. Noise is linked to all sorts of serious health problems, such as heart disease, dementia, mental ill health and strokes. It can even impair learning in young children and cause low birth weight in babies. We expect Leeds City Council to put public health above corporate greed.”
“LBA also wants to expand the definition of daytime by 90 minutes, changing it from 7.00-23.00 to 6.00-23.30. That means there would be no restriction at all on the number of flights allowed from six in the morning till half eleven at night. It also means the 7,000+ summer night flights would all take place within a 90 minutes shorter night time period.”
Ian added: “GALBA is ready to take on and beat LBA again, like we have done so often before.”
Notes
Health impacts of noise: there is detailed information on GALBA’s website, with links to various sources to verify the impacts we have mentioned.
LBA’s new planning application: there are currently local planning conditions that define ‘night time’ at LBA as 11pm to 7am. Those conditions also put a cap on the total number of flights (landings and take-offs) permitted during the summer and winter seasons: 2,800 in the Summer Season and 1,200 in the Winter Season. These rules exist to protect the public from the harmful effects of aircraft noise and Leeds City Council (LCC) has responsibility for monitoring and enforcing those conditions.
LBA now wants to abolish the night flights cap, replacing it with an annual ‘noise quota’, which would work like this… Every individual plane has a noise ‘quota count’ (QC) number, with lower numbers meaning the planes are relatively quieter. However, there is still no such thing as a truly quiet jet engine. Based on LBA’s 2020 planning application, which also proposed an annual noise quota count to replace the cap, we expect the ‘noise quota’ to be set at 1,375 per year, which would mean LBA is permitted to fly at night:
Here’s the most important bit… The latest generation of planes at LBA are a mixture of QC0.25 and QC0.125. So if half the planes flown at LBA are QC0.25 and the other half are QC0.125, then LBA would be allowed 8,250 flights at night over the year. There are fewer night flights in the Winter Season (about 1,000), so the majority of LBA’s 8,250 night flights would be in the Summer Season. The current limit on summer night flights is 2,800 but if LBA sets the annual noise quota count at 1,375, that could rise to 7,250.
LBA also wants to expand the definition of daytime by 90 minutes, changing it from 7.00-23.00 to 6.00-23.30. That means two important things:
LBA has also mentioned paying for improved noise insulation for some people in some areas but has not said where or what kind of insulation. It should be noted that this would only reduce noise for people while they stay inside with their doors and windows closed. It would do nothing to reduce the extra greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from the additional planes.
Background and timeline: GALBA’s monitoring found that LBA had exceeded the cap on the number of permitted night flights in the summer seasons in 2022, 2023, 2024 and complained to Leeds City Council (LCC). LCC upheld GALBA’s first complaint and issued a Breach of Condition Notice against LBA in 2023.
LBA then applied to LCC for Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUDs), which aimed to persuade LCC to reinterpret the meaning of the local night flight planning conditions – LBA wanted a large number of planes to be exempt from the cap. LBA’s CLEUD applications were rejected by LCC and their appeal was rejected by a Planning Inspector at a Public Inquiry in Leeds in March 2025. LBA has appealed against the Public Inquiry decision but a decision is not expected for several months.
Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) report: the EAC has published the much anticipated report of its inquiry into Airport expansion and climate and nature targets. The report will go live at 00.01 on Friday 24 October and can be accessed online here. The EAC’s press release about the report is reproduced in full below.
GALBA: is a group of concerned citizens from across West Yorkshire who successfully campaigned against a planning application by Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) to expand by three million passengers a year.
House of Commons: Environmental Audit Committee Press Release
Airport expansion could put net zero in “serious jeopardy” without further safeguards
The government’s current approach to mitigating the climate impacts of aviation while proceeding with airport expansion could put net zero delivery in “serious jeopardy”, a committee of MPs has found.
The cross-party Environmental Audit Committee has delivered its verdict on the government’s plans to expand several airports, in its report published today on ‘Airport expansion and climate and nature targets’.
The Committee’s inquiry examined whether the government can deliver airport expansion and meet the environmental goals that it has signed up for.
Currently, government policies are insufficient to deliver a reduction in carbon emissions from the aviation sector in line with carbon budgets. Alongside an increase in demand, this puts the government’s delivery of net zero in serious jeopardy.
“Whilst it may be possible for the government to deliver airport expansion alongside its climate and environment targets, we are concerned that the proposed environmental impact from airport expansion will make such targets significantly more difficult to achieve and at much greater effort and cost,” the Committee says.
“Furthermore, the government has not demonstrated that the economic growth from airport expansion provides enough benefit to outweigh the negative climate and environmental impacts it will lead to,” they add.
While expanding airport capacity is likely to provide some growth to the UK economy, MPs say the level of that growth is unclear and that the government has failed to provide substantial supporting evidence. Approving expansions already at Stansted, Luton and Gatwick suggests it is proceeding without the necessary evidence base to sufficiently underpin its economic arguments, the Committee says.
Ministers have ruled out measures to manage demand for aviation, such as limiting the number of fights available. MPs say that the government will need to demonstrate what alternative tools it will use instead, given that the Climate Change Committee cites demand management as one way to achieve environmental targets.
The Committee says the current Jet Zero Strategy relies on a far higher cost to industry to abate emissions than is currently seen and requires significant carbon savings to come from technology. These potentially carbon saving technologies, such as Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) have not yet been seen on a commercial scale.
The Committee also raises its concern that ministers are proceeding with expansion before updating the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), originally produced in 2018. By doing so, MPs warn the Government is relying on “an outdated policy framework which is inconsistent with its objectives” and not allowing for proper scrutiny of expansion proposals against the new ANPS.
The government must set out whether it will be able to deliver on its climate, environment and biodiversity targets while pursuing significant airport expansion, MPs say. It must do so before or alongside publishing an updated Airports National Policy Statement and before any further substantial expansion projects are underway.
Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins MP said: “The aviation industry is critically important to the UK, but it’s also one of the hardest sectors of our economy to decarbonise. The government has made clear it is set on expanding airport capacity; the Committee has investigated how it can do that whilst meeting its own environmental targets.
Meeting our decarbonisation targets is already a major challenge. Expanding airport capacity is likely to make that task much harder. Under the government’s existing Jet Zero Strategy, expanding airport capacity is likely to put net zero at serious risk, unless it is accompanied by a serious strategic approach to increasing the pace of decarbonising aviation.
Having ruled out the kind of demand management measures likely to seriously reduce emissions, ministers need to make clear what alternative tools they are willing to use to ensure targets are met. New technological developments are promising and may in time provide an alternative route forward. But are they yet ready to be the basis for justifying this level of aviation expansion?
At the same time, the government is proposing to expand airport capacity because it will help to grow the economy. But Ministers were unable to point us to solid evidence setting out how much growth such expansion would deliver. If these plans are ever to get off the ground, it’s vital that the government provide us with some hard facts.
This problem can’t simply be outsourced to industry; the scale of the challenge is too great and only government has access to some of the tools needed. It’s time for the government to step up and take responsibility for its own targets. I’m concerned that the alternative is a lose-lose scenario that leaves a dynamic net zero economy out on the runway.”
Leeds Bradford Airport is big enough already