News Updates
September 11 2025 • 4 minute read
Airport campaigners and local businessman call on Council to take immediate action to stop unlawful night flights.
Lawyers representing the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) have written to Leeds City Council, calling for urgent action to stop unlawful night time flying from Leeds Bradford Airport.
The letter follows Leeds Bradford Airport’s appeal against the decision of a Public Inquiry held earlier this year. The Inquiry rejected the airport’s attempt to reinterpret the rules that limit the number of planes allowed to fly at night.
Nick Hodgkinson, Chair of GALBA, said: “LBA claimed that all they wanted from the Public Inquiry was ‘clarification’ of the meaning of the night flight rules. The Planning Inspector gave them clarity but they don’t like it so they’ve decided to carry on ignoring the rules.”
“It’s crystal clear that LBA has been behaving unlawfully for years and it’s up to the Council to put a stop to it. We know the Council cannot completely ban night time flying but they can and must make the airport stick to the rules. There’s no excuse for doing nothing.”
Nick added: “It’s no good waiting for LBA’s boss to do the right thing – he doesn’t care about rules, local people or the environment. All he cares about is increasing night flights and getting a big bonus on top of his six figure salary!”
Chris Bullock lives under the flight path in Otley and runs a successful local business, Active Tagging Limited, supplying equipment to the NHS. He said: “I employ local people and I’m proud of what we do. But right now, I’m struggling to keep going because of the sleepless nights caused by Leeds Bradford Airport’s flights.”
“Most nights I wake up to the roar of planes. I head into work exhausted, too tired and upset to concentrate. My staff feel the same. Some are even thinking about moving away because they simply can’t get the rest they need. How are we meant to run businesses and drive safely on the roads when we’re permanently tired?”
In July, a Planning Inspector rejected the two most important of LBA’s three applications for Certificates of Lawful Existing Use or Development (CLEUDs). The CLEUDs aimed to reinterpret the local conditions that limit the number of planes allowed to fly from LBA at night. An unintended consequence of the arguments used by LBA in the Public Inquiry was the Inspector ruled it is now unlawful for LBA to fly any of its most frequently used planes between 11pm and 7am.
Ian Coatman, Secretary of GALBA, explained: “LBA wanted to fly an unlimited number of planes with a noise rating of QC0.25 and QC0.125 at night. But their arguments backfired big time and now they’re not allowed to fly those planes at night at all. It was a massive own goal! GALBA and the Council have always said that these newer planes are allowed to fly at night but also that they must be counted towards the limit on the number of night flights.”
“The good news is that the Council already has the power simply to allow these planes to fly at night and also count them towards the night flight cap. LBA’s appeal makes no difference at all to this, so we’ve asked the Council to crack on and do it. We understand the Council is low on funds but this is a quick, simple and cheap way to make LBA behave.”
Notes
Chris Bullock is the Managing Director of Active Tagging Limited, Otley. His full statement is here:
My name is Chris Bullock. I live in Otley and run a business supplying healthcare equipment to the NHS. I employ local people and I’m proud of what we do. But right now, I’m struggling to keep going because of the sleepless nights caused by Leeds Bradford Airport’s flights.
Most nights I wake up to the roar of planes. I head into work exhausted, too tired and upset to concentrate. My staff feel the same. Some are even thinking about moving away because they simply can’t get the rest they need. How are we meant to run businesses and drive safely on the roads when we’re permanently tired?
And it’s not just us in Otley. Communities in Horsforth, Bramhope and across the flight path are suffering. Parents, children, workers – everyone is losing sleep. This is more than an inconvenience. It’s a health risk.
Meanwhile, the airport’s owners want to grow from 4.2 million to 10 million passengers a year. Leeds Bradford is controlled by DigitalBridge, a Florida investment company interested only in profit for shareholders. They don’t hear the 2am noise. They don’t breathe the polluted air. They don’t care about our health or our environment.
This year’s flights have already caused huge disruption and serious harm. If expansion goes ahead, our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty will also be permanently damaged. Yorkshire’s countryside, one of our greatest assets, will be sacrificed just so a foreign company can make more money.
For me, this isn’t just about noise or business. It’s about protecting our families, our health and our community. We are paying the price every single day – and it has to stop.
In their 2020 planning application, LBA acknowledged that “Environmental noise… has been linked to a range of non-auditory health effects including annoyance, sleep disturbance, cardiovascular disease, impairment of cognitive performance in children, higher BP, hypertension or the prescription of antihypertensives, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, neuronal disorders and cardiometabolic disease.”
Background to the Public Inquiry
There are local planning conditions that define ‘night time’ at LBA as 11pm to 7am. Those conditions also put a cap (a limit) on the number of flights (arrivals and take offs) permitted during the summer and winter seasons: 2,800 in the Summer Season and in the Winter Season at 1,200. 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.
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 LCC. LCC upheld GALBA’s first complaint and issued a Breach of Condition Notice against LBA in 2023.
LBA then made three applications 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 (not counted towards) the cap on the number of permitted night flights.
GALBA submitted detailed legal arguments and factual evidence to LCC about LBA’s CLEUDs and LCC rejected all three applications. LBA appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against LCC’s decisions which led to a Public Inquiry in Leeds in March 2025. The decision was issued in late July and is summarised below. On 29 August, LBA applied to the High Court for permission to appeal against the decision. It is not known how long it will be until the High Court decides whether to allow LBA to appeal.
Public Inquiry decision
CLEUD A: rejected
LBA wanted all of the newer aircraft used by airlines at LBA (with a noise rating of QC0.25 and QC0.125) to be exempt from the cap on night time flying. If successful, this would have allowed those planes to fly in unlimited numbers at night. The way LBA argued for this was very risky and backfired on them.
They claimed that the existing night flight rules meant that these newer planes were not allowed to fly at all at night. But LBA also claimed that the night flight rules had been broken for 10 continuous years, therefore the rules no longer applied to those planes, therefore they could fly without any limit on their numbers.
The Public Inquiry agreed with LBA that QC0.25 and QC0.125 planes are not allowed to fly at all at night but also found, as a matter of fact, that the night flight rules had not been broken for 10 continuous years. Therefore, QC0.25 and QC0.125 planes are simply not allowed to fly at all at night. That was a serious ‘own goal’ by LBA.
CLEUD B: partially allowed
LBA wanted a particular definition of smaller aircraft that would be exempt from the cap on night flights. They wanted planes with lower QC ratings (0.125 and below) to be exempt so they could fly in unlimited numbers.
While the Public Inquiry agreed with the principle of LBA’s argument, it found that only certain types of small planes are exempt from the cap – i.e. those listed in a 1993 NOTAM document from the Civil Aviation Authority. This means that all newer and smaller planes not listed on the 1993 NOTAM have to count towards the cap.
CLEUD C: rejected
LBA wanted all planes that are scheduled to arrive before 11pm (i.e. in the daytime hours) but which actually arrive late (up to 1am) to be exempt from the cap on night time flying. The Public Inquiry rejected this application, so all delayed flights between 11pm and 1am must be counted towards the cap. The Public Inquiry also ruled that emergencies are allowed to land and are not counted towards the cap on night flights. These rulings are what GALBA has always argued.
This decision on delayed flights is significant because GALBA’s monitoring has identified a pattern of hundreds of late arrivals in recent years. All these late arrivals must now be counted towards the cap on the number night flights.
Note: delayed planes that arrive late after 1am are simply not allowed to fly at night at LBA. They must be redirected to another airport or the departure postponed.
Options for Leeds City Council following the decision
There is no requirement for LBA to apply to LCC for permission to fly planes rated QC0.25 or QC0.125 at night. The discretionary power in para 6) c) of planning permission 29/114/93/FU simply states that LCC can approve those aircraft – there is no mention of any need for an application by LBA:
“6) During the night time period (23.00-07.00), no aircraft movements shall take place other than by:
The volume of evidence gathered for the Public Inquiry is sufficient for LCC to decide to use 6) c) without delay. Allowing QC0.25 and QC0.125 planes to fly at night, and counting them towards the night flights cap, would regularise the situation swiftly. It is not in the interests of people living under the flight path to have LBA flying its noisiest aircraft at night.
If LCC maintains that an application by LBA is required in order to use 6) c), and no such application has been made over a month since the Public Inquiry decision was issued, it is also ‘expedient in the public interest’ for LCC to take appropriate enforcement action against LBA for the unlawful QC0.25 and QC0.125 flights, which have breached the night flight cap, made during this and previous years.
Leeds Bradford Airport is big enough already