1."there won't be any increase in noise - the planes aren't getting noisier" (Richard Gooding's statement).
London City have just recently admitted that there WILL BE AN INCREASE IN NOISE- the individual planes might not be noisier (apart from their planned Boeing transatlantic service - which will) but THERE WILL be MORE NOISIER Category A jet PLANES than ever flying overhead - about 120,000 of them! 50% more planes - 50% more noise!
2. "we won't say tough luck, just get on with it 'John' " (meaning the community in Richard Goodings terminology!) "we'll help with noise insulation" .
They'll only help with noise insulation if your property wasn't given planning approval after 1990 and you live in the 57dblaeq noise contour. You MIGHT be entitled to mechanized ventilation in the 57dblaeq contour.
3. "some residents wouldn't even be happy with 'silent' aircraft flying over them"
Hmmm...surely Richard Gooding is not suggesting that objectors to the expansion are anti - aviationists? Silly man -our advice to him is to know your objectors!
4. "the jobs will more than make up for any environmental impact"
We're not sure that 46,000 residents who won't be able to have their windows open will agree with you at all, nor all those residents who have asthma and care about the environment.
We definately get our value for money when Richard Gooding is interviewed.
And the great gaffs by LCA's public relations team, RPS and others - the 'experts' of spin?:
1. the effect to local traffic will be minimal (upon expansion)
Oh let's live in a business dreamland that doesn't want to fork out any money towards transport infrastructure.
2. the effect to air pollution will be minimal
Now that is simply delusional - perhaps LCA can define THEIR definition of 'minimal' as we suspect it is different to the one in the Oxford English Dictionary.
3. air pollution levels - in those areas around the airport where it was high - this was due to prevailing winds which blew pollution in to the area.
RPS spin on the 'bad to make it good' - how ingenious they are for blaming the wind direction!!
4. asthma will not get worse with more pollution from planes - it is the traffic on the road that makes it worse.
And what evidence do LCA have to prove that statement? NONE at all - and so studies which connect aviation emissions to asthma supercede their unsubstantiated claims.
5. "the expansion will not affect the wildlife"
LCA claim that the Wildlife Trusts 1 day wildlife count within the perimeter fence of the airport is adequate to gauge the effect of expansion on wildlife. They did not even take into account the River Thames, nor the many reserves in the 13km safeguarding area. Again, a completely unsubstantiated claim by LCA in an attempt to cover up their flaky submission.
6. "we have carried out an extensive consultation"
Oh dear - once again they need to check their definition of extensive with the dictionary - surely their not using the word 'extensive' to put spin on their utter failiure to engage with all residents affected?
