Thursday, May 15, 2008

A Case of Double Standards - LCA and Crossrail

Noise, vibration, dust and other environmental effects were top of the list of concerns you think we are going to say residents don't you?

In fact, they were the stated concerns of London City Airport in their Petition regarding the construction and operation of Crossrail.

It seems LCA were more than happy to use the Human Rights Act and their concerns for the environment to protect themselves and their 'most demanding and high profile of customers' who use the Jet Centre, but not when it comes to residents. But what is most evident is that they certainly do not practice what they preach.

The document, passed to us by fellow objectors, when shown to residents has been greeted with a ' you are joking'? Sadly we are not, well they were not: the double standards applied by the airport, (yes the one that can't measure it's own noise levels for 7 years, and as stated by other commentators has not offered the full environmental impact of expansion), are truly amazing.

It's just a shame that some of the things they ask for, they seem utterly incompetent of carrying out themselves within their own business for the well being of the community, even though they are required to do so under the Section 106 Agreement issued by the London Borough of Newham. We could liken that to a 'specific code of practice' that they demand in the petition - but one that LCA have shown little regard for themselves if recent findings are anything to go by.

But cheer up - it looks like LCA want cash for noise/ surely residents would be entitled to the same for the inconvenience, noise, dust and vibration and the significant loss of value on their properties (yes we have some data from another airport for evidence that expansion does affect property prices) from LCA activities up till now: get your claim forms and Human Rights Lawyers contacts for the ready!

The document quotes:

31."Your petitioner is also apprehensive about the noise, vibration, dust and other environmental effects of the construction works in the vicinity of the Jet Centre and the implications that these will have for employees and passsengers". "By its nature, the Jet Centre operation is used by the most demanding and high profile of customers who expect high standards of service". "The adverse effects of construction works may compromise such standards and result in a decline in the usage of the Jet Centre, causing Your Petitioner significant financial loss". " Your Petititioner requires the Promoter to be bound personally by a specific code of practice to minimise or mitigate such effects and a full and sufficient indemnity in respect of such financial loss".

34. "Your petitioner is also extremely concerned by the impacts on the Jet Centre from the operational railway". "In particular, Your Petitioner is apprehensive about the potential noise and vibraition effects of running trains in the tunnel that passes underneath the Airport and the implications for the sensitive environment of the passenger facilities at the Jet Centre"."Insufficient data is in the Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill to enable a proper assessment of the likely impacts of these operational effects. "Your Petitioner considers that there is inadequate information regarding the assumptions used in the assessment for train speed, track fixing, and track foundations". "Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should be required to incorporate all reasonably available mitigation measures including track-laying and foundation techniques in order to ensure the vibration and noise effects of operating trains are minimised".

Community Impact
39. Your Petitioner is also greatly concerned by the wider noise,dust, vibration and disturbance effects of the construction works in the community and the resulting environment that the works will create. Your Petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound to specific code of construction practice, which is fully consulted upon with the local community in order to ensure the minimum impact on residents and businesses.

Human Rights
59. Your Petitioner submits that in its current form and without further amendment or provision as sought by Your Petitioner, the Bill is inocompatible with the right of Your Petitioner peacefully to enjoy its property and to carry on trade or business. The Bill would unfairly interfere with such right contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and fails to provide Your Petitioner with sufficient right of participation in future determinations of Your Petitioner's rights........