Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Guardian - Picks up our Crossrail story on London City Airport

Nice to see that Paul Vidal, reporter of the Eco Soundings column in The Guardian today, has picked up our story on the whingeing London City Airport petitioning against Crossrail.
This won't go down well with the LCA PR - more negative, but factual information about London City Airport out there in the public domain, what next? Freedom of speech, of the press and democracy? LCA better get the chill pills out! Don't forget LCA are upset, because they feel it's their human right to enjoy their business 'peacefully'! It's got nothing to do with the competition of another transport system which might take some of their custom away from jets and put it onto high speed trains of course!
January 28, 2009 The Guardian

Off the rails
Crossrail, the east-west rail line soon to be built through London, has been welcomed by commuters, government and business. But three organisations have now petitioned the House of Lords, complaining about the noise and pollution that could occur during its construction. One is London City Airport, which runs the airport, another is London City airport's freeholder, and the third is London City airport's leaseholder. FYI: London City airport wants to increase flights from the airport by 50% - flying in the face of many complaints about its own noise and pollution.


PRESS RELEASE from Campaigners in Havering:

Havering, the outer London Conservative borough which is officer led, has the most laid back attitude to airport expansion and climate change in the south east.

However, local Tory MP, James Brokenshire, has realised the full impact of expansion at London City Airport. Those plans, combined with NATS flight path alterations, will affect Havering dramatically. However, any consultation with the people who live there has been non-existent.

Havering Tory leader, Michael White, says London City Airport’s growth will NOT create ‘unacceptable environmental impacts so far as we are aware.’ A response to LCA’s Newham planning application was not considered ‘appropriate’. Havering stood alone as the only local authority out of the many to be affected by expansion at LCA not to make ANY response whatsoever.

And how confident are they that the impacts of increased flights are ‘acceptable’? Well, no other members of Havering Council were aware of the LCA expansion plans apart from Michael White and the chairman who signed the decision. The matter was not raised at local area committees or indeed flagged up in the Council’s fortnightly free newspaper.

So Havering Council thinks it’s ‘acceptable’ not to respond to NATS surveys which propose increased over-flying in parts of Havering. It thinks it is acceptable to make no response to a plan to increase flights and emissions at LCA by 50% which will impact on the quality of life for many residents.

But the most staggering betrayal of local democracy is Havering’s secrecy about the whole issue. Local grassroots climate change activists have had to expose the effects of these planning issues and inform the local press, residents and Council members.

And as for public consultation….? Well don’t ask! But we can rest assured that the Council will keep ‘ these and other aviation matters under constant review.’

Well , that’s a relief!

Rosina Purnell
To get involved contact 01708 437811

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Conviction For Uncertified Flights Out of London City Airport

An eagle eyed resident noticed that the CAA had carried out a prosecution in Stratford which they suspected had to be linked to an activity from London City Airport. A freedom of information request to the CAA and we have all the information to enlighten us of yet more goings on at LCY.

It seems that illegal flights were going in and out of LCy. They were illegal as they were in breach of the Air Operator's Certificate(AOC). British North West Airlines pleaded not guilty - but were duly convicted. You can read more about the AOC here.

We at FTF can't help but question: how on earth did London City Airport allow these flights to operate, and more than once? Or did they just pass the buck and have their heads buried in the sand over this issue too? It shows a complete disregard for health and safety of the communities and users, not only by BNWA at the time, but also by London City Airport. Why wouldn't LCY have checked the AOC for the aircraft? They are always going on about these stringent conditions put upon them by the CAA, though as we know, there is little regard for following rules, or obligations from the 10 years of neglect to environmental monitoring.


CAA Listed and Provided Information:

The prosecution referred to is:

BNWA operated a number of passenger flights between Sandown Airport on the Isle of Wight and London City Airport in August 2006, using Piper Chieftain PA31-350, registered as G-BBNT. In operating these flights BNWA was in breach of its Air Operator’s Certificate.

At Stratford (East London) Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 the Company was convicted after trial of three specimen offences under Article 6, ANO 2005. They were fined £1000 on each count and ordered to pay £4000 costs. Total £7000.

Just How Toxic Is London City Airport?

About 50% more toxic than it should be according to EU limits.
In 2006 the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy published a report entitled: "Dangerous levels of toxic gas detected at most major airports" .The contents of the article are truly shocking, and yet it doesn't seem to have been addressed, to our knowledge, at all.

It found that "Levels of a toxic atmospheric pollutant exceed EU limits at most airports in England,". The most worrying was the indication that: "Over two thirds (16 out of 23) of the airports included in the CSP’s study recorded dangerously high levels of nitrogen dioxide – a noxious gas that irritates the airways of the lungs and causes breathing difficulties."

The EU says nitrogen dioxide levels need to stay below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air (mcg/m3) to be safe, the readings at London City Airport were 50 per cent higher than the EU target. And if that were not enough, we can re-visit the issue of Newham having the highest rate of mortality in under 30s in England, and above average levels of asthma and other respiratory diseases:

Respiratory physiotherapists say the consequences of being exposed to the gas can be especially severe among people with existing lung conditions, like asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.

CSP spokesperson, Professor Grahame Pope, says:
... ‘There’s no doubt that aircraft contribute to the problem, but it should be noted that cars, buses and taxis ferrying passengers to and from these sites are dominant sources of pollution...

So what have the government and Newham done about these dangerous levels which expose EU targets? Nothing it seems, well that is apart from approving a 50% increase in flights, which will further increase nitrogen dioxide. But don't worry, RPS and the airport have said that everything will be ok, and that the pollution is nothing really to worry about!

So that's alright then. If you believe them that is.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Tax Payers Soon To Own RBS's LCA Loan?

Just a few years ago London City Airport was sold for an estimated £750m, netting a windfall for Irish tycoon Dermot Desmond who bought the Docklands site in 1995 for only £23.5m.

At that time, the credit watchdog Standard & Poor's said the deal involved a "staggering" level of debt.

Michael Wilkins, S&P's infrastructure director, said the ratio was about 27 times EBITDA earnings, four times as high as most private equity deals. The loans are taken out on floating rates, making the operation vulnerable to any monetary squeeze.

AIG Collapsed last year with Global Investment Partners (Credit Suisse and General Electric - the owners of LCA) buying their 50% share of the airport. GIP are now budding on Gatwick.

Financing for the transaction was provided by The Royal Bank of Scotland and Credit Suisse.
Royal Bank of Scotland is on course for the biggest loss in UK corporate history after revealing it expected to write down as much as £20 billion on the falling value of its assets and its investment in "Toxic Debt". The government is bailing out RBS today. The Taxpayer will now own 70% of Royal Bank Of Scotland.

As well as loans from RBS the airport relies heavily on flights to Scotland by bankers - now very thin on the ground. We wonder how many "ghost" flights and half full flights are taking off at the moment just so airlines can keep their slots? We already know that half/empty planes were in operation over a year ago from LCA.

So now you are not just annoyed by noise and choking fumes - YOU the taxpayer are covering the security bill and NOW you it seems possible that you could actually own the loan on the London City Airport! You actually couldn't make it up!

So just how far did your wages go to cover your bills this month whilst the government continues to throw money at private businesses such as London City Airport for security etc?

Friday, January 16, 2009

Is Publicis the Next To Help LCA?

Publicis is a marketing and communication company. Apparently they address the ''multicultural process facing industry'' and "recognise the importance of local culture".

Rumour has it they are being could it be something to do with the 'racial equality impact study' that Newham failed to ensure was carried out by London City Airport? LCA clearly need a lot of help right now, as they have effectively ignored the needs of the majority of residents affected by their 'activities' when failing to carry out the 'racial equality impact study'

Apparently LCA and Newham are above the Race Relations Act requirement, when it comes to major applications in the Borough of Newham, the most ethnically diverse borough in London. LCA and Newham Council are so focussed on the community that they appear to have written off 3/4s of the local schoolchildren in and around the airport, and a large proportion of Newham residents.But Friends of the Earth have reminded Newham of their obligation...and the planning officer has been made to think about it by the solicitors. Newham have taken legal advice following receipt of the letters from FOE and the planning committee agreed to DEFER a decision in order to give them an opportunity to consider the issue further.

The development committee ACCEPTED this recommendation to DEFER at Wednesday's meeting.

Oh joy....some social justice at last for the people of Newham!

So it's possible there's a bit of marketing and advertising work going in Publicis's way. So best to warn the communities to get ready and hang on to their FACT cards!!


Thursday, January 15, 2009

Hoon knows whose side he is on and it's not yours, it's big business!

Hoon has given the go ahead for Heathrow, third runway and all. So 700 households now know that the government is happy to let big business 'run over' Sipson, and disturb and affect the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of residents across London. This decision doesn't only effect the living, yes BAA and this government are happy to 'run over' cemetries too - well to be precise they will even move the local cemetary if it gets in the way of profit.

Planes are getting quieter they say? Why is it then that more and more of us that affected by Heathrow flights across the whole of London? East London is already disturbed by Heathrow flights with residents being woken at 4.30am. The ever increasing noise and pollution from aviation is growing - it is a collective affect across England. Green planes? It's all pipe dreams and about as genuine statement as 'strict and stringent noise and air monitoring'. Yes, we've heard this all at London City Airport -and their 'stringent operating and monitoring conditions' amounted to 10 years without consistent, reliable actual noise and air quality readings. Oh yes, and they also share the 'broken promises' theme with BAA. With this governments collusive relationship with the free loading, tax payer subsidised, aviation industry, allowing aviation expansion willy, nilly, at ANY cost it speaks for itself whose side Hoon and this government is on.

After yesterdays' gaffe by 'Baroness Vadera' stating that she could see 'green shoots' of promise on a day when around 8,000 jobs were earmarked for redundancy, we see Geoff Hoon, the Bufhoon take the word of the CBI's Jones and state 'I know which side I am on'. Yes, it is very clear which side Hoon and the cabinet are on, and that is not on the communities side at all, and clearly it isn't isolated to the aviation issue!

We're predicting things are really going to start to get interesting now - if anything the ridiculous collusive Department for Transport, the government and aviation are going to be in for a VERY rough ride over this very misguided decision along with their overall policies on aviation expansion across the country.
Well done to John McDonnell and those other MPs who have stood up and spoken up. This is just the beginning.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

London City Airport Threaten Newspaper For Factual Reporting

It is strange, for over a year team FTF have wondered why SOME local papers, particularly some of those which belong to ARCHANT, most particularly the Newham Recorder have a bit of a problem in reporting balanced articles on London City Airport. By behaving in this way, they have constructively denied the communities accurate, and informative information about the effect of London City Airport expanding.

The Newham Recorder have consistently printed biased reports, all bar around two reports which were printed after a rush of complaints to them threatening complaints to the PCC. The Newham Recorder is an embarrassment to the hard working reporters and media sector who take pride and have passion in their work and their ability to deliver facts to the community.

Integrity sadly appears almost absent in some locations. But bullying and intimidation seems to be the name of the day in aviation land.

It seems that the Public Relations Trainee at London City Airport reacts to negative stories in the press with threats, or that is what they did to the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian just a week ago according to the Editors comment in the most recent edition.

Is this how London City Airport normally stops negative, but factually accurate, stories from being printed? You have to wonder. The PR trainee gets on the phone and threatens that if they print the truth they will complain to the Press Complaints Commission? We can only question if this is the normal behaviour of the PR office at the airport, or was the trainee just having a bad day, now that Hill and Knowlton have decamped.

Perhaps we should all lead by example in response to the bullying PR tactics by complaining to the PCC if inaccurate and consistently biased reporting continues in certain newspapers. We won't be complaining about the TRUTH though as that is what we want. But we've plenty of examples for a strong complaint already - about 18 months worth.

At FTF we embrace the TRUTH - telling the truth is not morally wrong, despite what some quarters appear to think if their own behaviour is anything to go by. Truth seems cheap to some when it comes at the expense of making money! Providing inaccurate information and purposely suppressing the facts to your own advantage however is morally wrong.

The freedom of the press is a precious thing - as is integrity. The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian reporter Daniel Binns and his Editor have shown enormous commitment to the community in reporting the factual information which affects their communities, and which the residents have the right to know. London City Airport doesn't appear to want anyone to know about the 9 near misses in the skies above us. It also appears they want to stop the press from printing the TRUTH.

The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian received such support for the report, that upset LCA so much, that a whole page was dedicated to the supportive letters...oh sweet joy! Don't forget to read the Editors comments, as it is an absolute gem! You will find the pages linked here shortly.

Any reporter who would like to inform us, in strict confidence, of a similar experience is welcome to contact us with details.

Friday, January 09, 2009

The 16 'Interests' of Councillor Chowdhury

The Evening Standard reported during the week that house prices in Newham have been the worst hit and have fallen by 18% . No hope of a sale than for the poor residents trapped by the Airport as a result of property blight for the foreseeable future.

But take pity on poor London City Airport Consultative Committee member Beckton Councillor Ayesha Chowdhury. With the average home price now at £257,963 her SIXTEEN properties in the ward are now estimated to be only worth a paltry £4.1 million. That's a drop, over a year of £750,000. As she does not have to declare any properties outside the borough we can only hope that she has other properties in less volatile areas. All's not lost though she has the yearly junket provided by London City Airport to look forward to in the summer..........whilst she busies herself with the concerns of local residents, unless those concerns are over aircraft noise and pollution that is! She couldn't possibly say anything objective about that at all in the State of London City Airport, whoops, State of Newham.

If she dared speak up against that deadly trio of 'friends': 'Sir' Rob Wales, R. Go, and 'The Nipper' then she'd soon fall out of favour with Newham State and have to deal with the 'consequences'....oh dear what a State indeed!

LCA Throws A Tantrum Over Crossrail, and MONEY

Christmas is over .The new year hangover has come and gone and you patiently wait to see how much this months credit card bill will be. The January Blues have well and truly arrived.

Well fear not Fight the Flights fans, we decided to cheer you up with some fun non fiction that will have you laughing till tears run down your face.

Yes it's the "Humble" petition from London City Airport against Crossrail.

3 Petitions have been put in against Crossrail to the House Of Lords by London City Airport and 'related' Businesses.

(1) City Aviation Properties Limited have put in the first. They are the freeholders of City Airport. While they have an office here in London, their accounts are registered in Jersey. Yes Jersey, that little Tax Haven. Why would City Aviation want to register their accounts in Jersey we wonder??!

(2) Marketspur Limited have put in the next. They own the head leasehold on LCA.

(3) London City Airport Limited. The airport operators.

London City Airport really don't want Crossrail on their patch. And if it's going to happen they want it on their terms. Or be heavily compensated.

So lets delve into this little masterpiece shall we, and point out some of the hypocrisy.... Perhaps make yourself a cup of tea first, its a long one! This is what the cry babies and R.Go at LCA are asking for:

(c) where a local planning authority proposes to grant permission for the development or to grant permission subject to conditions , in a manner contrary to the advice of the consultee , they must notify both the CAA and the consultee.

(d) following this notice the local planning authority may not grant planning permission before the expiry of a period of a 28 days from the date advised in writing by the consultee as the date of the relevant information.This provides the CAA and the consultee with an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to cal in proposals for his own determination.

LB Newham (LBN) and London City Airport (LCA) DID NOT consult with the CAA on the increase of additional flights over East London. They failed to mention this and it took a member of the public to uncover this information and another to read this out in the Newham Planning Meeting on the night of the 'decision' in October 08. This is in our opinion a complete failure of duty of care to the public and a disregard for the mechanisms set up to control and promote safety. In one of the most densely populated areas with thousands of people working and living in a Public Safety Zone (PZN) , LBN and LCA have not taken advice from the most important authority and regulator. Why? And looking at point (c) while the extra flights were granted , some of the extra flights , for example early morning , were contrary to the advice from LCA so they were obliged to notify the CAA , where they not?

The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone.Aircraft operations at London City Airport cannot be modified to accommodate the extent of activity in this area. Should such activity be deemed to be unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority , restrictions may be imposed on the aerodrome licence , which would severely curtail or prevent commercial operations.......

So is this why the CAA have not been consulted on extra flights? LCA have refused to use the methodology used by DfT in the working out of their next PSZ because the size grows enormously as a result of expansion. We have highlighted the grave concerns over the PSZ and Connaught Bridge, all of which have been dismissed by LBN and LCA. And as LBN has decided to move 2000 staff into Building 1000 , which could be within the PSZ when remodeled due to expansion, is this not a violation of the objective of the PSZ. LBN have ignored all our concerns about the PSZ and now staff are being moved into a building that looks set to be in the 'crash zone'. There will be 2000 staff , plus visitors etc all now congregating within a growing potential PSZ, Excel, Ramada, Building 1000 and residential all look to be covered. But don't worry the airport are paying off some of the landowners and leaseholders for covering their land or property with a crash zone - yes unbeknown to you they are paying to put you in danger!

.....Your petitioner also requires the Promoter to be bound personally by the specific code of practice for the works in the vicinity of the Airport in order to migrate and regulate all construction and operational impacts of Crossrail.

A Binding code of practice. Say something like a Section 106 perhaps? LCA have broken the binding Section 106 many times. Out of Hours flights , failure to give complete noise data , to name but some. When we, the public, ask LBN to hold LCA to account over these breaches of planning law, it's dismissed out of hand.

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 which may result in a decline in the usage of the Jet Centre. Your petitioner 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 any financial loss it may suffer.

Section 106! Section 106! Residents around the airport have been failed by LBN to uphold the S106 for LCA. The noise suffered is unbearable.While the average noise claimed is 57db over 16 hours, Newham themselves have taken readings of up to 90db and above.

The Health and Safety Law states that there is an exposure limit of 87db for workers. Protection and training of noise starts at 80bd. Workers should and are protected against noise exposure. This begs the question - are hundreds of companies in Newham breaking the law? If a jet takes off at 92db and a postman is delivering mail and exposed to this noise should he not be wearing protective gear? After all if he hears 92 db jets every 3 minutes over 2 hours while doing his job , his average is certainly not the 57db claimed by LCA. And we are sure that residents might actually welcome dust as opposed to the choking fuel burn they have to endure daily.

Your petitioner is also greatly concerned by the wider noise , dust , vibration 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 by a specific code of construction practice which is fully consulted upon with the local community in order to ensure the minimum impact on surrounding residents and businesses.

Yes I bet you read that twice! First off they want the local community to be consulted. They didn't extend this courtesy to us residents after the shambolic consultation about additional flights. They want minimum impact on residents but the impact on residents from the airport is far more invasive to our lives than anything that Crossrail can do. At least at some point Crossrail will finish. The daily blight from the airport will continue indefinitely.

(40) (41) (42)
Your Petitioner is also greatly concerned that the proposed station for the Royal Docks is located on the north side of Victoria Dock. it seems to your petitioner that this station has been designed to serve inappropriately to serve principally the Excel Exhibition Centre or the northwest quarter of the docks........

Your petitioner submits that a better location for the Royal Docks station would be underneath Connaught Bridge.This would have the potential to serve all four quarters of the Royal Docks....... Your Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Bill to remove authority for the works comprised in the current proposed station to include provision for a replacement station at Connaught Bridge........

There is little evidence to suggest that consideration has been given to integration with the majority of businesses and residents in the Royal Docks..... binding assurances from the Promoter which ensure integration of surface access with surrounding businesses and residents including London City Airport.

Have a quick nip back to point (19) "The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone".

So now they want to move the station to Connaught Bridge in the PSZ? Yes of course they do because now it suits and benefits them. Gone is the concern to minimise the number of people congregating within the Zone. It's all about money now.

Money, Money, Money!

They do not want Excel to have the station. They want it. While businesses across the capital have given financial help to Crossrail - how much have LCA given? To move the station would cost the taxpayer £millions. LCA gave little more that £1 million to have the DLR on their doorstep leading a member of the Lords to declare "they got a good deal... a very good deal"

(52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58)
Compensation Provision

All these sections deal with compensation. LCA want money. Lots and lots of money for any disruption or effects from Crossrail. Yet another bill for the taxpayer to fork out for. Unfortunately they are not very good at sorting out their own compensation. Sound proofing and double glazing to effected residents is still going on. Few residents get full double glazing, only some of their windows. While the airport looks after their own interests, yours have long been forgotten.

And Finally a Drum roll......

Your petitioner submits that in its current form and without further amendment or provision as sought by your petitioner , the Bill is incompatible with the right of your petitioner peacefully to enjoy its property and 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....

Read it again.
And again.

To peacefully enjoy it property.
Something that many of us cannot do because of the airport. We take it then perhaps our Human Rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 are being breached by noisy jets? Are you peacefully enjoying your property?

Funnily enough LCA want Crossrail to do what the residents want LCA to do. Protect our homes. Peacefully enjoy our properties.Follow strict guidelines.Proper compensation. Funny when the boot is on the other foot.

As observers, it looks like LCA have a problem. They do not want Crossrail. Former Mayor Livingston said if Crossrail went ahead LCA would no longer be needed. There are also compulsory order provisions in the bill that can take over areas at and around the airport.Hence putting pressure on LBN to administer the Section 106 properly.

They have got away with so much for so long with Newham. But Crossrail is not Newham Council. They can't cajole them into getting what they want. Maybe the hired help Hill & Knowlton are fighting their corner. But H&K have bigger and better paying clients in favour of Crossrail. In such a wide ranging cross London development LCA are small fry. They will try and get the community involved so they can get the puppets of Newham State council involved. The jobs and the connection from Newham to Woolwich and the benefits to communities could be immeasurable.

The link to the full objection is below. Read it and email us your feelings about the hypocrisy of London City Airport.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Newham Town Hall 14 January 7PM

Development Control Committee
Wednesday, 14th January, 2009, 7.00 p.m
Newham Town Hall

London City Airport, Harman Road, E16 PDF 309 KB
Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary conditions 13 and 15 of the outline planning permission no.N/82/104 dated 23 May 1985, as previously varied by the Secretary of State on the 26 September 1991 and by the London Borough of Newham on 21 July 1998 and 11 July 2007, to allow up to 120,000 total aircraft movements per annum (number of total movements in 2006 was 79,616) with related modifications to other limits.

This is an update report, following a late representation received after Development Control Committee resolved on the 8th October 2008 to grant planning permission subject to completion of a S106 agreement.

Recommendation: APPROVAL
Report of the Joint Interim Executive Director Regeneration, Planning and Property (Enclosure).

Monday, January 05, 2009

Government Allows Heathrow to Bring MORE Misery to South and East London

Watch out pro-aviation expansion NIMBYS - it could all be coming to a sky near you!

As if London City Airport is not enough of a blight on the most densely populated area in the country, it seems that the 'government' become ever yet more disingenuous alongside the aviation sector to expand at ANY COST to communities or the environment.

Plans to increase the amount of flights to Heathrow is going to affect homes as far as 30 miles away from the airport. Of course in south and east London this takes no account of the 50% increase in flights from London City Airport, approved by the very ignorant and totalitarian run London Borough of Newham.

You'll be heart warmed to know that this government made NO attempt to highlight this change to the very people who would be most affected - they made no attempt to directly consult with residents beyond West London. It's identical to the LCA consultation fiasco - if you could even call it a 'consultation'. Thankfully John Stewart of HACAN Clearskies has been the key individual to highlight the effect of changes at Heathrow on south and east London - if it was not for his continued significant and committed involvement the communities soon to be affected would still have been kept in the dark by this morally lacking government. You can check the barmy paperwork from the Department for Transport on 'Adding Capacity' at Heathrow HERE.

The Times article (which we recommend you read) stated: Aircraft will take different routes from the holding stacks to the new turning points, meaning there will be winners and losers in terms of noise.

Residents in many parts of inner London will no longer have aircraft passing within earshot, but millions of people in outer London and the Home Counties will either be exposed to aircraft noise for the first time or find many more aircraft flying directly overhead. The main losers will be those living close to the new turning points, which will be over Reading to the west and Dartford and Woolwich to the east.

Noise levels will also increase in Watford, Amersham, Camberley, High Wycombe, Barking, Rainham, Ilford, Leytonstone, Walthamstow, Barnet, Carshalton and Beckenham. People in Hampstead, Highgate, Islington, Hackney, Mile End, Stratford, Harrow, Ruislip and Henley will no longer hear any Heathrow-bound air traffic.

The Government did not make clear in its consultation document on Heathrow expansion, published in November 2007, that so many people would experience a significant change in aircraft noise.

Looks like Boris Johnson, Mayor of London (Objector of the Heathrow 3rd runway, but supporter of London City Airport expansion) is going to be a winner - with Heathrow aircraft being removed from the skies of his residential area - lucky him!

Notting Hill Housing Trust - Blinkered to Airport Noise Effect On Residents?

It seems they plan to move residents into London City Airports 63db Noise Contour Zone

We have only just recently discovered that the office block at the Royal Albert Basin, The IVAX building, by the river Thames, and 13 acres of land, has been acquired by Notting Hill Housing Trust.

Now, either NHHT has been completely naive into purchasing this land with a view to make it a residential led, mixed use development, or they have decided that social housing does not deserve to be in an environment which ensures some degree of quality of life.

The area, and the IVAX building is right by the side of the very low approach to the runway, approximately less than 500 yards away. It has the 'benefit' of also being in a ESTIMATED 63db noise contour area...and according to our experts mapping of the crash zone using the correct methodology for the future appears to be at threat from the 'Crash Zone'. We are just wondering how residents will use all this 'well designed public space' if they risk having their eardrums burst with 120,000 jets flying over each year: one every 90 seconds with noise levels so high you won't be able to hear each other speak! What a barmy idea to house yet more people in the property blighted area.

To say we are speechless that NHHT would even consider housing residents in an area which already has such excessive noise levels from jets, is an understatement. Let's hope that they make prospective social housing purchasers, and tenants well aware of the noise levels and of the crash zone before they get them to sign on the dotted line. Property blight has already hit all the homes in the area and has left neighbouring new blocks empty for years as a result of the detrimental effect of the airports activities.

Funnily enough Fred Nugent of Newham Council makes no reference to the 50% increase in flights and noise levels on the blighted site and how that will effect residents negatively! How surprising!
Posted Date: 04/07/2008 - Housing Net.Co.UK

Notting Hill Housing has exchanged contracts on Ivax Quays, a large site in the Newham area of Thames Gateway region.Notting Hill has proposed developing the 13 acre waterside site into "Great Eastern Quays": a residential led, mixed use development in line with the Albert Basin Development Framework Plan.The development will play a significant role in the regeneration of the area, combining private sale, shared ownership and rented accommodation along with over 7,000 square metres of commercial space and almost 6,000 square metres of well designed public space.2,000 new homes each year by on