Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Red Bull VS London City Airport

Great article by James Ranger in the Wanstead & Woodford Guardian today.

Interesting comment from London City Airport too:

"A letter of objection was submitted by the airport in March 2010 to London Borough of Newham opposing Red Bull’s application.

“The comments made by Plane Stupid are totally inaccurate and do not reflect the airport’s position.”

It is very strange they didn't mention the whole story: At the London City Airport Consultative committee just a couple of weeks ago, the airport representative, Gary Hodgetts, allegedly stated they were currently ''in discussions with Red Bull over the application'' - but if the airport have objected what is there to discuss? 

Of course London City Airport is no stranger to objecting to developments around it, and then withdrawing those objections for various reasons: Columbus Tower and also Crossrail. Compensation was sought over Crossrail. 

Watch this space.

If you would like to object to the Red Bull Madness to build another runway in the middle of a residential area in East London then click here. You might also like to look at the type of activities that Red Bull wish to bring back to the most densely populated area of this country, and the risks involved.

Quiet Sky Raises Fight The Flights Challenge to Politicians

Residents across east and south east London who live beneath the flight paths of London City and Heathrow Airports were given 6 days of respite during the no flight ban due to the Eyjafjallajokull volcanic eruption.

Although residents were sympathetic to those who were stranded as a result of flight ban, locals were able to enjoy their homes and environment, some for the first time in over 20 years.

A Tower Hamlets resident commented: "I couldn't believe the difference in our area. People were actually sitting outside in their gardens and windows were flung open. It felt like a different place and reminded me who it was before we had the City jets in the skies" Another resident in Redbridge commented: “No departing flights from City Airport at low altitude, no early morning arrivals bound for Heathrow and NO jet roar! Sheer bliss ”. 

Another said: “We could actually hear bird song here in Hornchurch and it was so refreshing to look up at the uncontaminated skies above our house for the blissful few days when the aircraft noise stopped”. A Newham resident said: "Whilst sympathising with the stranded passengers worldwide, because of the flight restrictions, I do have to say that the few day's peace and quite was a tonic. It brings home just how much we are subjected to the stress of London City Airport in its normal running mode". In Greenwich “ it's the first time we've not been woken by Heathrow flights at 4.40am and London City Flights at 6.40am – we could even have all our windows open which is rare”.

Residents across the boroughs have been monitoring noise levels as part of a project set up by Fight the Flights in alliance with University College London. The results, to be released in the coming week, will compare the difference in noise levels between the flight ban and normal flight activity over east & south east London.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights said “we would like to set a challenge for politicians from all parties to act on the unacceptable noise levels from current aircraft activities and find ways to better manage and reduce them. The European Noise Directive underpins this and should assist politicians in acting positively on this issue”.


Notes for Editors:

(1). The European Noise Directive 2002/49/EX states (Article 1, Objectives) ‘The aim of the directive shall be to define a common approach intended to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to the exposure of environmental noise’

(2) The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propellor planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets flown.  Kindly provided by the Civil Aviation Authority

2002 25

2003 26

2004 28

2005 36

2006 37

2007 50

2008 58

2009 63 (Jan-Sept)

(3)  Estimated population who will live in the noise contours of London City Airport with and without expansion:

(4). FTF launched a legal challenge in September 2009 to Newhams decision to grant approval to flight expansion. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request / or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations

(5).FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobby’s decision makers.

Fightthefights.com http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

For more information:

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558

Press Release dated 27/04/10

Monday, April 26, 2010

FTF Submit Paper to the GLA: Environmental Impact of the Expansion of London City Airport

A 4 page document has been submitted by FTF to the GLA Environment Committee, at their invitation, as part of an investigation.

The call for submissions and for residents to complete an online survey are all part of a GLA investigation into the effects of London City Airport's expansion on the environment.

If you have not completed the online survey - why not do so now, it takes just a couple of minutes, click here. The Committee is keen to hear how the extra flights are impacting on local people.

Alternatively you may email your views to David Bellman at david.bellman@london.gov.uk

The London City Airport Consultative Committee have advised that neither London City Airport nor Newham Council will be submitting any comments to the investigation. 

Press Release: Plane Stupid targets Red Bull-sh*t

Environmental campaign group, Plane Stupid, has deposited a large mound of manure outside the south London HQ of soft drink giant Red Bull. Three activists, dressed as ‘avenging air hostesses’ in wigs and mini-dresses the same colour as the company’s logo, crowned the mound with placards reading: ‘Red Bull-sh*t’, ‘Red Bull gives you (plane) wings’ and ‘No second runway by stealth.’
The move was prompted by the revelation that Red Bull has applied for planning permission to build an aerodrome opposite London City Airport. The company claims that the new control tower, runway and helipads would support its annual air race on the River Thames.

But there are growing fears that the company is working with London City Airport and Newham Council to introduce a new heliport and permanent runway for private jets through the back door. ‘We believe Red Bull’s claim is bullsh*t and we’re telling them so,’ said spokeswoman Elizabeth Baines.

‘London City Airport is positioning itself a major hub for City executives,’ Elizabeth continued. ‘We suspect that Red Bull’s planning application is an underhand way of helping the airport to attract private jet and helicopter users. That way, they won’t have to deal with fierce opposition from people in East London who are sick and tired of the noise and pollution from the airport.’
London City Airport has been feeling the heat recently. Local campaign group Fight The Flights (FTF) has launched a High Court bid to stop the airport from expanding its flights volume by 50%. Six local councils have publically supported FTF’s bid. The Greater London Assembly’s Environment Committee is also holding a probe into the effects of the expansion.

‘We insist that Newham council turns down this planning application. Red Bull may have high flying ideas but this time we think their wings should be clipped,’ Elsie added. ‘
For more information contact:
Leo Murray: 07595 506673
Nancy Birch: 07506 006597
Notes to the editor
In July 2009 Newham Council gave London City Airport permission to increase the number of flights from 91,000 to 120,000 per year. Expansion was made conditional on tougher environmental controls for air quality and noise levels.
The GLA’s review will look at environmental impacts such as noise, emissions and air quality and whether current environmental safeguards and controls are adequate.
The six local councils opposing flight expansion at London City Airport are: Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets, Bexley and Barking & Dagenham.
Red Bull’s HQ is on Tooley Street, South London.
The proposed Red Bull aerodrome is situated in Beckton, East London.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

How many residents are/will be in the London City Airport Noise Contours?

Confident About Ash. Just like the Tobacco Industry

So the big bullies (BA) threw a few jets out of the pram last night.  Lord Adonis, CAA and NATS appear to have buckled - though it's hardly surprising with the relationship which government has with aviation in this country.  The CAA's overstatement that they are 'independent' smacked of an overcompensation to encourage the public to believe they really are.

In what appears to have been a cornering of the 'experts' who had imposed the flight ban over the UK for safety reasons, the big aviation bullies otherwise known as 'profit before people' appear to have forced them to change their minds and forget about how volcanic dust and airplanes just don't go together. It is felt that the risks that are being passed to technology and the government, and of course no doubt the taxpayer are quite astounding.

The denial by the airline operators and their organisations that volcanic dust isn't really anything big at all made it interesting to read in Business Week alongside the recommendation by the aircraft makers that "The two big engine makers, General Electric Co. and Pratt & Whitney, said Tuesday they were advising airlines to avoid volcanic ash, and to inspect engines that may have encountered it accidentally."

But fear not airline companies: those whom subscribe to the Association of European Airlines will be overjoyed to hear that David Henderson, like much of the aviation industry tends to do, has cherry picked his stand point on this one: "David Henderson, spokesman for the Association of European Airlines. He said airlines did not expect that they would have to increase the tempo of regular engine checks".

"As far as airlines are concerned, they are confident that their established, regular maintenance inspections are perfectly adequate to detect the effects of ash," Henderson said.  

It's strange, from our experience aviation is very happy to quote the airline makers evidence and recommendations on other issues to get what they want: but Mr Henderson has clearly rejected something which might cost more money, even if it did make crew, passengers and those of us on the ground more confident about flights operating near/in volcanic dust.

However it appears that the confidence that Mr Henderson has in 'business as usual' in an exceptional environment is not shared by all in the aviation industry. As reported by Reuters:

Airlines say some 40 test flights over the weekend showed little risk, but experts say the dispersal of the ash appears to be far from uniform. That means patches of relatively dense ash may be scattered all over Europe, with potentially disastrous consequences.

"Since forward-looking weather radar and other sensor systems aboard modern aircraft cannot see this stuff, the very real possibility exists that a passenger jet could fly into one of these high concentration pockets and suffer serious damage," said aviation consultant Chris Yates.

The ICAO regulation that has prompted this widespread grounding is from experience gained from over 80 incidents between 1980 and 2000 and computer modelling (or) best guestimate," said aviation consultant Chris Yates. "The airline industry will know this very well and are clearly making the argument that we are being over cautious."

"Once the existence (of the) cloud was known, just one incident of major engine failure, let alone an accident caused by the ash, would have left the airlines and aviation regulators with a heavy responsibility as well as a legacy of distrust amongst the public, possibly for years to come," said Nick Pidgeon, professor of psychology at Cardiff University.

"Under such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the cautionary approach to risk has been adopted." 

We wonder what Nick Pidgeon now thinks of the lifting of the 'cautionary approach to risk'?

You may also wish to read more about why airlines have resisted setting safe dust levels in the past in an article in todays The Guardian.  Money rules.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Private Jet Takes Off from London City Airport During No Flight Ban by NATS - An act of irresponsibility?

A private jet took off from London City Airport at around 6.30pm this evening ignoring the flight ban applied by National Air Traffic Systems due to the volcanic dust cloud over the UK.

FTF was advised by a source that private jets are exempt from the ban - but we have been unable to confirm this with official sources. 

However we can confirm that if NATS have applied a flight ban over the UK for safety reasons then it appears entirely irresponsible and reckless to have allowed a private jet to take off from one of the most densely populated areas in the country.  It is particularly worrying when it is reported that "It will not be safe for flights to take place across most of northern Europe on Monday, UK Government ministers have said."

In addition in the Sunday Times: Guy Gratton, head of Cranfield University's facility for airborne atmospheric measurement, took a flight with fellow researchers to gather data. 'Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, I would not want to be putting an airliner up there at the moment,' said Gratton".

Volcanic dust cloud location  can be seen here.

Animated image of volcanic dust cloud here.

Flight activity across Europe can be seen here

Articles on flying through volcanic ash here, and the damage here and here

Peaceful Day 5 - Before and After The Volcano No Flights Zone

Day 5 of no flights. The skies and sound of London are now almost unrecognisable - residents who never complain of flight noise have suddenly realised how quiet it is, how they are sleeping better and for longer and feel much more relaxed. It seems the UK is having a holiday without having to go on holiday.

Before: Contrails line the sky above London and apparently contribute to the  south east of England getting less sun than other parts due to the heavy air traffic and contrails left:

After: clear blue skies, no cirrus, no contrails - a rare sight over London.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Air pollution: a quiet killer

London NO2 levels in 2008. Any areas in yellow or red, including the yellow patch in West London, are in exceedence of the limit (from the Mayor’s draft air quality strategy 2010)

Living near an airport can have serious health consequences. In December last year we reported on research from the German Environment Agency which found that men exposed to aircraft noise have a 69% higher risk of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease, while women who exposed to aircraft noise during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a stroke.

Now two new reports have underlined the significance on human health of air pollution. As a result of emissions from both aircraft and associated passenger and freight traffic overland, airports can become pollution hotspots. The area around Heathrow airport has been in breach of EC limits for nitrogen dioxide for many years.

The Environmental Audit Committee (a committee of MPs from across the political spectrum, currently suspended pending a general election) published the results of its inquiry into air pollution on 16th March. Poor air quality, the committee found, reduces the life expectancy of everyone in the UK by an average of seven to eight months and up to 50,000 people a year may die prematurely in the UK because of it. It has been linked, the committee reported, “to asthma, chronic bronchitis, heart and circulatory disease, and cancer.”

Assessments of the financial costs and benefits of taking action, the Committee went on to argue, underplay the health and environmental benefits of improving air quality while taking no account of any possible EU fines for breaches of the mandatory limits. They recommended that the impact on premature deaths and the cost to the NHS of poor air quality should be quantified, and that the government should urgently improve understanding of the health effects of exposure to nitrogen dioxide.

Around the same time, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, issued his draft air quality strategy for the capital, which set out a range of measures designed to help tackle the problem. Yet the strategy forecast its own failure, admitting that these steps will fall short of bringing us into line with EU law, and that even by 2015 levels of nitrogen dioxide in the Heathrow area will exceed the limit values. Central government, argues the Mayor, will need to help close this gap. He continues to oppose the building of a third Heathrow runway because of the local environmental damage it would bring.

In January this year the GLA Environment Committee reported its ‘grave concern’ about the likelihood of an expanded Heathrow being about to meet the EU’s standards on air pollution.

From AEF (Aviation Environment Agency)


Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Election 2010: Where do your prospective political candidates stand on London City Airport expansion?

Now is the time.

It's time to find out just where your local prospective candidates stand on the expansion of London City Airport. This is your time to ask the questions and their time to let you know clearly where they stand on the issue.

Why not send a letter or email to them? FTF have even put a letter together that you can use as it is and simply add your details or edit as you wish. The letter text is beneath, simply cut and paste it into a blank document and then find your list of local candidates from this fantastic website that has made finding out who's standing for who so simple:

Go to www.yournextmp.com , pop your postcode in and it will give you the candidates standing in your area, with as much information as is known about them.

When you've had your responses please do email them to: fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk and we will publish them on this blogsite.

Good luck!


1 Address
2 Address
3 Address
4 Address
5 Address


Dear Sir/Madam

Re: London City Airport Expansion

Newham Council gave approval to London City Airport to increase its flights by 50% last year to 120,000 flights a year. The airport also has further flight and terminal expansion plans beyond that as stated in its Masterplan.  The campaign group Fight the Flights is legally challenging this decision and has been granted a Judicial Review by the High Court. The expansion of the flights in the past 20 years and increased use of jets has already had a huge negative impact on East and South East London and I would be particularly interested in your response to the following:

1. Do you support the current and future expansion plans of flights at London City Airport?
2. Are you aware of the rapid increase in the use of jets over propellor planes, and the increase in noise levels as a result? 
3. Are you happy with the noise mitigation and environmental monitoring that the airport is required to provide to the community? What would you do to reduce the impact of current flight levels on residents lives?
4. What is your understanding of the impact of continued expansion at LCY on the environment and public health?
5. Do you feel that the expansion of flights at London City Airport in the most densely populated area of the country is of benefit to the high density housing and open spaces they are building and promoting in the Thames Gateway, many under the flight paths?
6 What reassurance can you give to residents such as myself that you will consider the communities and not only big business on issues pertaining to London City Airport?

Yours sincerely


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

The CAA: Who's In Charge Of the Flight Paths? An Unelected Decision Maker and The Aviation Industry

Almost 2 years ago, National Air Traffic Systems (NATS) released consultation documents on proposed changes for Terminal Control North - the London and South East region. We are led to belive it was the biggest consultation of its kind in the history of flight path proposals.

The proposals for London City Airport had been submitted to 'accommodate jet aircraft that use the airport today' (quote taken from a NATS letter to MP's 2009).

The consultation document was placed in some libraries, and was advertised via the NATS website. We have also since been told it was available on disk. But unless you visited a library (not too many people do these days) or have a pc (not too many people do in the poorest parts of the country such as Newham) then it seems unlikely you would have found out about the flight path changes that were being consulted upon. The campaign community were of course aware, and did their best to alert residents to changes which may effect them.

After the deadline passed for comments, NATS wrote to those who had responded, advising them that the whole consultation was going to be carried out again due to the feedback they had received. Great. Only that wasn't the whole truth.

Last June residents complaints went as sky high as the flight paths themselves. Residents who perhaps had only had a handful of planes fly overhead and hardly noticed them had suddenly found themselves being disturbed by a fairly constant stream of planes from LCY or at the least concentrated batches of planes at certain times of the day. Nobody knew what had happened. After all NATs had written and advised FTF that the consultation for changes to the flight paths was to be re-run in late 2010.

Residents were being told by the Department of Transport(DfT) (see the document on our website named DfT Response to Resident or email us) and London City Airport(LCY) that there had been no 'route changes' from London City Airport in its 20 odd years of running. Other residents were told by LCY that the Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) had indeed changed.

The first image beneath shows the original flight path and density of flights. The second image is the density of flights after the flight path changes, red indicating 80 or more flights a day. This is as far as we understand the current situation of the westerly departure flight path over East London.

Then finally the full truth was revealed in a response from the CAA to a local resident, which confirmed that the SIDs (aka flight paths/routes, whatever you want to call them, they are all simply a flight path to those who live beneath them) had indeed changed. The City Airport proposals that had been submitted in the NATS document had indeed been implemented, despite NATS telling respondents that they were to be consulted upon again. The proposals which did not relate to City Airport were not implemented. There will be another consultation for them, probably later this year.

Additionally, upon further inspection of the CAA/NATS stakeholder letters sent out to stakeholders inviting them to comment, it was felt that the impact on areas such as Waltham Forest and Redbridge were underplayed. It was not made clear that the flight path would be moving further north, away from the borough of Newham and just how this would affect the communities beneath the moved flight paths in Waltham Forest and Redbridge.

FTF submitted a formal complaint to the CAA in late 2009 regarding the manner in which the flight path changes had been implemented, and the apparent misinformation given by NATS in the consultation process. The CAA responded helpfully to the complaint, and FTF were invited to a meeting at the CAA to discuss the issues and processes. The meeting explained the processes well - however it was unable to resolve why residents were misinformed by NATS, nor why residents did not know that the LCY flight paths would not be consulted upon again.

The CAA were not able to answer why even those who had responded to the consultation had not been told that the flight paths had been implemented until after the fact. One interesting point the CAA made was that the LCY flight path changes had been in the pipeline for 5 years, so these proposals should have been widely known, you would have thought.

The CAA have continued to point towards their press release on the issue of the flight paths being implemented in May 2009. Unfortunately we have been unable to find one paper that ran with their press release, nor any resident, nor campaign group that was aware of the press release until a local resident in Wanstead was given the link in a written response from the CAA.

The CAA have also continued to justify, what FTF felt, were changes made through the back door, as being essential to safety. What is also unclear is if all the changes made were had actually been consulted upon. A letter from the CAA to a resident stated that some of the changes were not consulted upon in the original NATS TCN consultation at all. So where does that leave the CAA who quote in their own press release:

"A change to the use or classification of airspace in the UK can take many forms but can only be made after consultation and where it is clear that airspace management considerations and the overriding need for safety allow for no practical alternative or where an overall environmental benefit will accrue". (CAA press release 29 April 2009)

The CAA, to their own admission, appear to say that NATS did not consult on all of the changes implemented. There is indication of this in the NATs letter to Stakeholders dated 8 January 2009 which refers to clear differences between that which was in the TCN document, and that which was to be implemented.

There are many more angles to this story, but the most illustrating one is how the changes were implemented with few people being aware until the noise from the flights became a problem. MPs and councils were not even aware.

So how is it that NATs get away with carrying out a consultation which essentially misinformed residents over LCY changes, and that the CAA went ahead and implemented the flight changes without even elected officials being aware?

It indicates that there is room for improvement in the process of consultation and communication between the CAA and NATS, no matter how good their intentions may have been in the initial processes of consultation. The DfT also appear to need to focus on the accuracy and clarity of it's responses to residents.

At the meeting we attended, the CAA showed a radar map of the current new flight path against the old flight path (see before and after maps above). The flight paths have moved around a mile north, and have got wider. Homes which were affected by less than 5 flights a day now find themselves in the middle of the flight path, suffering from however many flights a day LCY are operating on any particular day. The CAA unfortunately feel that the change is minimal, and stated that the areas had always been flown over. Well if you were not under a busy flight path before and you now are, there is nothing minimal about this change at all.

The density map was kindly provided to FTF by the CAA and it illustrates the change well. Sadly the CAA felt that people were only complaining because they had been told about the changes, and because others were complaining. It was quite astounding to think that the CAA were in such denial or perhaps were unable to grasp the effect and impact of their decisions on the ground.

An enlightening response to a question was later given by the CAA which may indicate who is driving these flight path changes: they were asked if the flight path shown on the radar map would need to be changed again. We were told only if the airport or airline companies request for it to be so. So who exactly is driving this unelected decision making outfit? The private businesses of aviation it seems.

Such responses indicate that issues of accountability need to be addressed. It seems quite unacceptable that an unelected quango, is allowing private businesses to drive the outfit in the direction they wish, without any elected officials involvement at all. Of course we know this will be vehemently denied, but it is clear that elected politicians are not included in this process at all, and it should be they who make such impactful decisions, not the CAA.

The CAA are now reviewing the flight path changes from LCY and Mayor, Boris Johnson said he supported a public review when he responded to an FTF request at the Ilford Climate Question Time. We await to hear more on his progress to ensure that the CAA don't carry out a private technical review, and it is indeed open to the public, and that the radar maps of before and after are openly shared, and transparency of the CAA is put into action. Even so, we would encourage you, whether you are a resident or elected official to submit comments to the CAA regarding the flight path changes as soon as possible.

Overall the CAA have been helpful, pleasant and have answered most of our questions, however in so far as offering a satisfactory resolution this has not been possible. There are simply too many pieces of the jigsaw missing, and a complete lack of accountability.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Boris, oh Boris - Are you listening?

Back in January Boris Johnson, Mayor of London pledged his support for a public consultation on the CAA review of flight path changes.

Since then we've written to Boris to try and find out what he's been doing to ensure that the CAA don't carry out a private consultation of their own, but a public one, where the residents who have to suffer the consequences of the CAA's decision get their say.

So far we're not convinced Boris is listening as we, nor any other residents have heard so much as a twitter from Boris over his pledge for a public consultation of the flight path review.

Let's hope Boris decides to reply to the residents soon, otherwise all those residents who packed out the auditorium in Ilford at the Mayor's climate question time might just end up thinking his pledge was worth very little.

Come on Boris, get a move on.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

FTF Meets the Challenge - Legal Fund Update

Fight the Flights is very pleased to announce that it has now met it's target for funding the legal challenge of Newham Councils decision to allow a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport.

We would like to thank the individuals, businesses and residents organisations who have given their time and/or donations to help us meet this target. We value your support.

The legal challenge continues to progress and as soon as a date is set for the judicial review by the High Court it will be posted on this site.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Waltham Forest Council Write to Newham Chief Exec: "Strongest Terms Of Dissapointment"

Chief Executive

Chief Executive: Andrew Kilburn

Waltham Forest

Dear Joe,

London City Airport Planning Application

Over the past few months many residents have contacted the Council about a perceived increase in the number of flights over the borough. Initial investigation suggests that much of this increase is linked to the operation of London City Airport (LCY), with parts of Ley ton and lower Walthamstow particularly affected.

We note that the London Borough of Newham recently resolved to grant planning permission for an application to increase the number of flights permitted at LCY by more than 65%, from 80,000 flights aircraft movements per annum to 120,000. As such, the Council is concerned that this decision is likely to exacerbate the issue of flights over the Borough considerably. Our records indicate that Waltham Forest was at no point consulted by Newham on the planning application submitted by LCY although our residents would clearly be affected.

I am therefore writing to express in the strongest terms our disappointment that Waltham Forest was never consulted on the planning application, especially given that we are a neighbouring local authority. Were we to have received an invitation to comment on the application, a comprehensive system is in place to ensure that the Council would have reviewed the need to respond and made appropriate representations. Whilst I accept that failure to consult us did not mean we were prevented from responding to the application, as you will appreciate it is not possible to constantly review planning applications received by neighbouring authorities.

Looking forward I hope our authorities can work more closely on issues relating to LCY, in the interests of both maximising the benefits and minimising the environmental impacts on our residents. Partly as a means of achieving this outcome, Waltham Forest has recently requested membership of the London City Airport Consultative Committee and I hope you feel able to add your support to our application. In addition, I would be grateful if you could ensure that henceforth Waltham Forest is consulted on any significant planning applications related to LCY.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Kilburn

Chief Executive, Waltham Forest

CC Janet Goulton, London City Airport

John Adshead, London City Airport Consultative Committee