FTF Launches Legal Challenge Fund Appeal

FTF to Appeal High Court Decision

In 2009 Newham Council voted to approve the 50% flight expansion at London City Airport, taking the current annual air traffic movements up to 120,000 a year. With the help of our lawyers at the Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre, we legally challenged the decision at the High Court in November 2010. We did this by pointing out that the climate change and air quality impacts of the expansion had not been considered properly.

Dissapointingly the judges did not rule in our favour and said that local authorities do not need to take account of the new policy target from the previous government of reducing aviation emissions back to the 1997 levels. The government however have not issued guidance to Local Authorities and until they do airport expansion and the associated growth in aviation emissions will go unchecked, making aviation emission targets impossible to meet and further damage our environment and community. This decision has the potential to negatively impact on every current and future campaign against expansion, and already there are indications that this decision has been used to justify expansion at another airport.

Our legal team have advised us that there are good grounds for an appeal of this decision at the Court of Appeal and we feel that due to the possible implications of this decision on all expansion plans that it is essential that we do appeal.

We Need Your Help

We are now seeking your assistance to help us continue to put social justice, the environment and the health and welfare of the communities at the heart of this planning decision. FTF residents all work, but are not able to afford to fund a legal case themselves and are campaigning in one of the most socially deprived borough in London,which severely limits funding directly from residents.

We are seeking funding for the legal costs of an appeal from organisations or individuals who have an interest in protecting our environment and of promoting social justice, and the health and safety of some of the most deprived areas in the country. We are particularly looking to other campaigners/campaign groups and residents from other airport areas who believe they are at risk from expansion plans and the impact of the FTF High Court Decision. We would appeal to those groups/NGOs and individuals to make a donation to our appeal fund due to the wider implications of the decision on their campaigns and work.

We are more than happy to meet to discuss our campaign, and the legal case in further detail at request. If individuals wish to donate an amount, small or large please contact us to find out how you can donate or use the PayPal service linked on the right hand side of the page at:

http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

London City Airport expansion has been an expansion by stealth and one which many residents are still only finding out about, despite it now being regarded as a major airport. FTF has played a key role in raising awareness and continues to lobby on the issues and impact of expansion. We have built ourselves a credible reputation: being asked to speak at various events such as Progressive London, UCL and the Houses of Parliament. We continue to believe that London City Airport is one of the most harmful expansions in the country, due to it's location in the most densely populated area of the country.

FTF wants the communities to be treated fairly, and they have not. We cannot meet climate change targets by allowing unfettered flight expansion, nor can we improve, or even maintain the quality of life or health of the residents in these areas all the time the London Borough of Newham is listening to business rather than environmental and health facts and not acknowledging the impacts on neighbouring boroughs.

Please help by giving generously to the Legal Appeal Fund.

London City Airport Continues to Fail Local Residents

Or how the fat cats continue to use your tax money to avoid paying their own way and promote it as 'community work'.

London City Airport spend a lot of time on Public Relations.  They go into overdrive, but spectacularly continue to alienate the residents who suffer the most as they are rarely, if ever made contact with.

The airport is keen at putting out press releases on how many t shirts it has bought, or how many hampers it has given away, or the latest christmas card competition for schools in Newham and Tower Hamlets, or how they've sent someone to talk to schoolchildren about careers.  But the airport owes the community much, much more especially the residents. But it's the residents, and what they have to put up with, who are consistently ignored. 

The airport currently saves £7 million every year by refusing to contribute to it's security costs to the Metropolitan Police. It would perhaps be admirable if the airport would simply pay up, but as a consolation the airport could offer that money to the charities and schools it wishes to support, rather than expect London taxpayers to pay 100% of their security costs in the first place. This selfish, greedy action of London City Airport deprives the London public purse of huge amounts of money which would indeed be filtered back down into policing and education as it should be.

Instead the airport goes for the cheapest deal of all and donated around £36,000 to charities last year. Not to be sniffed at of course, but read on and you will see the bigger picture. Some of those thousands will be the donations given directly by residents and passed through the middleman of LCY from the Funday etc.  But for an airport that avoids paying £7m a year, it makes the donation look relatively small  in comparision and clearly the impact of not paying the £7m has a far greater impact on reducing services to you, the resident in your community.  Of course more public money from London tax payers was also poured into this private business owned by a bank and hedge funders GIP: the London Development Agency gave them a huge amount of grants to build additional aircraft stands and set up their LCY website! Can you believe it, they were actually given  taxpayers money to set up their website, how many small businesses would ever get that help?

The public relations are clearly welcome to those that are receiving the gifts and advice, however there is one huge flaw: London City Airport continue to fail to engage fully and openly with residents who suffer the most. Not only do they fail to engage, they have consistently failed to put any plan together to effectively improve residents quality of life as a result of the airports operations.  The draft noise action plan was a wonderful illustration of this - the airport felt at the time of drafting that nothing was bad, and there was no need for them to make any efforts to reduce or keep noise to the current levels - business as usual then! Those 1000s of individuals who make up East London, and who are the life and soul are invisible to London City Airport, they are the inconvenient truth, a reminder of the bad things that happen around airports, the pollution, the noise - all things that the airport prefers to ignore or deny.

Our argument is not that the airport are giving t shirts away or speaking to schoolchildren or donating money to charities, we think that is what any large corporate business who receives lots of public funding should indeed do: but  is about why they are not proactively looking for solutions to improve the environment and residents quality of lives in the areas affected. They are IGNORING residents suffering. 

It is a half baked PR strategy, a cynical one that completely ignores the ordinary resident of the streets, roads and closes that suffer intolerably from flights 7 days a week and if they have their way will simply get worse. It's always been the same at LCY, their communication with residents has been defensive, poor and of little help in providing accurate information. Residents have simply been left to pick up the pieces, year on year, and no better example was the one where residents were left to deal with the extra 20,000 flights the airport operated despite it being against the planning agreement. It translated into a noise nightmare that year and you know, they didn't care about residents, they, GIP were simply counting the dollars and pounds.

Ask yourself, what have LCY done to help you with noise and pollution from their operations? It's likely that a few of you have been told to keep your windows closed and have mechanical ventilation which is noisy,costly to run and leaves the room stifling, or they simply said they can't help you at all even though you live in the noise contour.

That, we are afraid, is the naked truth and no amount of PR trips to the local school are going to help the resident who has to put up with excessive noise and air pollution 7 days a week for almost every day of the year. Residents are simply left asking for help, and getting little or nothing in return whilst the MET are pretty much in the same boat with the airport, asking for their money but never getting it.

Perhaps it's time the airport put it's brave hat on,faced the residents and started looking at and working towards positive solutions to deal with the dirty noisy industry they want to make lots of money from at the expense of the local community. Residents have had no choice but to face up to reality, it's about time London City Airport did too.

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise, Whilst BACityflyer and LCY Celebrate the Noisiest Jets

PRESS RELEASE – IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 08.11.10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise

"It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport”.

Greenwich Council Planning Committee voted to support expansion at London City Airport on the basis that the airport introduce more jets to replace propellor planes in the belief that they are quieter and have less impact on the communities. But this is contradicted by work done by the Civil Aviation Authority. It shows that Jets at London City Airport are significantly noisier than propeller planes – in particular the new Embraer E series jets are considerably noisier than the old BAE RJ Avro 'whisper jets' that they are replacing (1).

Fight the Flights, the campaign group which is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London next week (2), can reveal these figures as London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer welcome with some fanfare the 700th E jet using the airport (3). 


The new jets have already impacted on community noise levels showing an increase in complaints being made to the airport as discussed in the London City Airport Consultative Committee Meetings (4). 

The noise difference between a propellor plane and an Embraer E series jet on take off/reverse thurst landing is an increase of 13dbs, this represents a 130% noise impact increase in real terms and is comparable to standing beside a road drill. The difference between an old jet and the new jets is 5dbs on a gliding approach which represents a 50% increase in noise impact in real terms. 

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights commented: “It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe the jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport. Surely if a borough is heavily overflown at just a few hundred feet on arrival and departures any council would wish to consider the noise impact above their borough not only the noise impact a mile away in another borough”. 

She added: “The Planning Officer either failed to understand the official statistics on the aircraft noise profiles and impact or was given incomplete information as the jets used are far noisier than the propeller planes. In a Freedom of Information request Greenwich Council revealed that their decision and understanding of the noise levels was based on stationary aircraft noise readings measured on the airports runway, approximately a mile away in London Borough of Newham. Greenwich has significant residential areas, including schools, covered by excessive noise levels”. 

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation:official noise database: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/

Noise Level of 

Propellor plane: ATR-42 Model: ATR42-500 Engine:PW127M 80.7db on full power lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing.

Jet aircraft: Embraer 190 Model:ERJ190-100 Engine: CF34010R6A0-1 93.3db on full lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing 


2. The legal challenge is taking place at the Courts of Justice on the Strand on 18th and 19th November. FTF launched it, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newham’s decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. 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. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.

3. London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer celebrate the 700th E jet : http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1245

4. An increase in complaints regarding the new larger jets: Embraer E series, being used at London City Airport has been discussed at the London City Airport Consultative Committee, with complaints being raised by two local Newham Councillors: 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin0710.pdf     Item 17E 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin1010.pdf      Item 6J 


Additional sources of information: 
The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets [as opposed to the propellor planes they are replacing], data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999     43 

2000    33 

2001     29 

2002     25 

2003    26 

2004    28 

2005    36 

2006    37 

2007    50 

2008    58 

2009    63 (Jan-Sept) 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

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

For more information: 

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 08/11/10

Cost of giving Newham Council the 'wow factor'

We have a thought that you may wish to ponder as you read through this illuminating article from the BBC: Newham is keen to state that London City Airport has bought so much regeneration to the borough, jobs, money etc, it's often used as the excuse as to why the residents around it have to suffer intolerably. It's marketed as a bit of pay off in exchange for all that pollution. But why and how is it that Newham continues to be one of the most socially deprived boroughs in the country with all this wealth that is supposed to be generating from LCY and landing into Newham? Those trickle down economics just aren't trickling down to the right people. The facts are there, plain to see.

_________________________________________________

As seen on the BBC: Cost of giving Newham Council the 'wow factor'
By Ed Davey
BBC News, London

London's most expensive council-funded festival, offices with the "wow factor" costing £18.7m and an in-house newspaper costing more than £500,000 a year.

As local authorities digest a 26% funding cut, BBC London examines the outlay in one of the UK's most deprived boroughs.

One critic said the offices resembled a "five star hotel or West End nightclub"

With its reflective floor and designer bird's nest light fittings, Newham Council's new back office looks impressive.

Last week's spending review ushered in an age of austerity for local authorities, ordered to make 7.1% savings annually for four years.

But at Newham Council staff are celebrating winning a top award from the British Council for Offices.

Judges called it an "outstanding transformational workplace environment", saying the "innovative, lively and colourful design contributed to a dynamic environment".

Daniel Windor, of interior designers Sheppard Robson, who carried out the work, said: "You have to have the 'wow factor' in that environment. You need to give it a bit of sparkle or it will fall flat."

'Ultimate Champagne socialist'

But the £18.7m cost of the building and its decor is one of several spending projects highlighted by a BBC investigation.

The Local Government Minister Bob Neill criticised the figure saying it showed members of Newham Council were "living the ultimate Champagne socialist lifestyle on the taxpayer".

The BBC was told the lights came from a designer but has been unable to track down the cost

In response a council spokesman said the building was saving taxpayers in the borough £7m a year.

Newham, where all 60 councillors are Labour, is ranked as the UK's sixth most deprived borough.

The Council's own publicity describes it as one of the poorest boroughs in London.

"Poverty intensity in Newham is high," it says.

Central government funding for the authority this year stands at £224m, more than £100m above the median London council.

The grant is based on need and takes into account deprivation levels.

Only two London councils, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, received more per head.

Like many local authorities, the council produces its own newspaper.

This is published fortnightly and last year cost the taxpayer £547,000.

Rebranding

The figure is the highest in London and compares with an average cost of about £140,000.

The council also funds an annual festival, formerly called the Newham Town Show.

But after Newham opted for a directly elected mayor, Sir Robin Wales, it was rebranded the Mayor's Newham Show and spending on the festival increased.

This year's show, attracting 40,000 people, cost £362,000, the most expensive festival predominantly funded by a London council.

Newham, one of the UK's poorest areas, is the Olympic borough

The sum is higher than Westminster's West End Live show, which attracts more than 250,000 people.

Newham, the Olympic borough, has declined to confirm how much the show cost in the last year before it was rebranded.

Along with Croydon, the authority was one of only two London councils to award pay rises to three senior councillors in 2010, during a public sector pay freeze.

Sir Robin's remuneration increased from £78,844 to £81,029.

It has also emerged that departing chief executive Joe Duckworth - once the highest-paid town hall chief in England on £241,000 - may receive a pay-off.

Mr Neill accused Labour councillors of a "spending spree that would make a millionaire blush".

"This is more evidence that if you root out all the waste and wild overspend in local government you can protect frontline services," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Taxpayers' Alliance said some of the spending highlighted at the authority amounted to "needless extravagance".
'Modernist chic'

Of the offices, she added: "This glitzy refit is the sort of thing you might expect of a five star hotel or a West End nightclub, not the back offices of a local authority in one of the poorest boroughs of London.

"Any additional grants Newham receive should be spent on efforts to improve the area, not modernist chic for council officers."

But a Newham Council spokesman called the new office "an efficiency move that is saving taxpayers almost £7 million each year".

The council says 91% of people find its magazine "informative"

He added: "These savings are being realised by reducing the cost of office buildings and introducing better ways of working for staff, such as having all back office operations in one location.

"This move has helped to achieve the lowest council tax in outer London."

He said the festival played a "vital role in bringing the community together and ensuring cohesion" and spending on the Newham magazine resulted in a publication that 91% of people surveyed found "informative".

The spokesman said increasing councillors' salaries brought the mayor into line with a recommendation from an external panel.

"We are continually looking to ensure value for money for our residents and are working hard to make our finances stretch that bit further," he said.

Additional reporting by Sarah Halls.

We hate to say it but: We told you so. Near Collisons Over London

Above: sequence of events leading, and to avoiding the near collision as illustrated in the Daily Mail.

Since the very start of this campaign, and of suddenly finding out that London City Airport wanted to expand to bigger jets, and more flights on one of the shortest runways, and in the most densely populated area in the country, we've been worried. Worried about a lot of things: pollution and the impact on health,well being and the environment, and of course safety. Why allow an airport to expand when at the most basic it's crash zone is going to cover hundreds, if not a thousand residents in the borough of Greenwich, let alone all the other worrying issues around safety?

Over the past few years we've seen increasing amounts of residents expressing fears of what they see in the skies above them: aircraft too near to one another. Some report it to the airport/CAA too: but the aviation industry always has an answer, usually one's we've heard hundreds of times before but simply can't be proved or disproved. But of course, as it's the big world of aviationistas with money to burn on expensive public relations firms,well and truly helped along by all those tax breaks (welfare benefits in our view) and VAT free fuel - then the non aviationista resident is soon shot down with the formula responses:

"the two jets crossing one another, it's an optical illusion"

"it was an air proximity report, it wasn't a near miss"

"it was not a near collision, it was a near miss"

"there have been no flight path changes at all, but the Standard Instrument Departures have shifted to the north"

"there's no opposition to the expansion of LCY" (Ok, that one is not relating to safety, however it was a statement made by the airport around the time the legal challenge was launched against Newham Council and we'll throw it in for the sake of it).

Wake up aviation industry, government departments and quangos: there are more residents than possibly ever before in history that understand more about operations, and know when you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. We've even see MPs/elected officials subjected to this ridiculous wool pulling from DfT, National Air Traffic Systems etc. Residents are not stupid, and never have been, and neither are our politicians: the aviation industry was simply always given the upper hand and was party to more information than we ever had access to. No longer. Residents are more educated, knowledgeable and informed than ever before on the industry and operations thanks to campaign groups such as HACAN, umbrella group Airportwatch and NGOs Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Aviation Environment Federation along with the Freedom of Information and Environmental Regulation Act. Hooray for at least some people power in this democracy.

If you approach the Civil Aviation Authority on safety concerns, (who wholeheartedly get behind the aviation industry regardless with full blinkers on, no matter what, and continue to approve larger and larger jets to operate out of LCY): well they'll call/write to the airport that you have concerns about, have a chat, ask the environmental officer at the airport to write a response and......say everything is fine! We'd be shocked to hear anything different now.

Strangely, a resident raised safety concerns about how London City Airport air traffic control were allowing jets to take off and land in the most appalling storm conditions a couple of years ago. Readers have to consider the situation of LCY's tiny runway to understand the full concern. The same jets sometimes took 3 attempts to land at the site, attempting landings from different directions and perilously aborting landings when around a 100ft or so above the runway. Some were struggling to reach a height above the conifers planted on the Royal Albert Basin at the end of the runway east bound. It must have been a scary experience for those drivers on the Sir Steve Redgrave, and Connaught bridge that day, perhaps also Canary Wharf. It was scarier still for residents watching from a living room window, thinking the unthinkable, and reminding themselves that the public safety zone is not also called also called a crash zone without good reason. Most 'incidents' - crashes to you and us (see what we mean about the language that the aviation industry use), are in the take off and landing stages.

Interestingly, and thankfully, those few weeks of terrifying activities to onlookers that year, haven't been witnessed to the same degree since. They were of course never discussed either, but who takes the concerns of residents seriously in the world of aviaiton? However concerns over the flights in the sky have increased, and this can be witnessed in the complaints being made. But despite the aviation spin on safety, near misses (or air proximity reports) are no strangers to London City Airport activities. The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian excellently highlighted the issue (and for which they famously received some bullying phonecalls from the London City Airport PR person over, to which the Editor firmly responded to with an editors comment the following week, with residents letters of support) gives a good overview of this, and we ourselves covered the amount of air proximity reports here and here.

We dare say that since the date that the blog was written, it's likely that there's more incidents to add. We certainly know we can add the Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Citation Jet July 2009 near collision, investigated by the Air Acidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) here, here and here in national headlines. You know that things are bad when even the AAIB comments: "the consequences of a midair collision in this part of the London TMA would be particularly serious because of the population density below". Not much comfort when it states that private jets are not required to be fitted with "crash‑protected recorders or flight data monitoring recorders". "Neither TCAS unit fitted to the aircraft involved had capability to record event data".

Predictably the Citation was not fitted with the equipment (and there's no confirmation at all that all the business jets are now either).Why do something unless your forced to is clearly the motto. Fortunately Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP has picked up on the issue and in her bulletin states:

"Then yesterday a report was issued about a very alarming potential for disaster over London City airport. A near-miss happened between a business jet leaving LCA and a commercial flight coming in to land at Heathrow, see here:

“The incident on 27 July last year highlighted the potential for human error to cause disaster above the heavily populated area between Hackney and Stratford where planes leaving London City airport routinely cross the flight path of incoming Heathrow-bound aircraft.”

One recommendation by air safety watchdogs is that all planes operating in this zone should be equipped with a collision-avoidance piece of equipment known as a TCAS II, which the business jet did not, and I intend to take this up with ministers.

Has anyone considered how many private jets fly out of LCY each year? It's not mentioned at all, probably because they were never recorded, but a free for all until last summer. Free for everything it seems, including the tax breaks. But be warned, the AAIB states, they investigate incidents, they don't report to apportion blame, but to make recommendations. Of more concern is that we couldn't find that anything stating that they perhaps investigated so that could identify who was responsible. But we realise that corporate responsiblity is regarded as dirty term. Some residents have asked why it took a year to carry out the investigation, quite. That this incident was AFTER the Standard Instrument Departure flight path changes signed off by the CAA in May 2009, reason given: safety and for jets, the whole incident appears to be a complete shambles and the changes appear to have seen one of the closest near collisions at LCY in the past few years to our knowledge.

It's just a shame that a lot of the media missed the real issues: there's simply too many aircraft over London, and how the 50% expansion of London City Airport flights aren't without cost and impact to Heathrow flights, queuing up for Heathrow from the east and the 13+ flight paths that cross over some areas of London, that there's a school less than 200 yards from the runway, homes alongside that school....and oh dear it just gets worse the larger the area you look at. NATS had already commented some time ago, that if all the expansions planned in South East airport masterplans were implemented then there wouldn't be enough airspace.

It seems that's the case already, and allegedly other factors such as saving money might be influencing some decisions and even the Pilots are now calling for an urgent change in regard to the London City Airport near collision, Coalition Duckhouse quotes British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) Captain Martin Alder: We don't have appropriate "failsafe" co-ordination at the moment for the unique aspects of this operation. It could best be achieved by redrawing the London City airport departures or alternatively not permitting London City to act independently.'

Julian Bray, an aviation expert commented: "Air safety is not a cash or financial issue, airlines and airport operators go into this business knowing that safety of both staff and passengers cannot under any cicumstances be compromised and that all costs to supply a level of safety are part of operational cost budgets and not subject to savings or culling."

London City Airport were predictably quiet on the negatives of operations and near collisions from it's residential hub:

London City Airport's Statement on the AAIB Report
Date: 09/09/2010 "Following the publication of the AAIB’s report into the incident at London TMA (terminal control area) on 27 July 2009 London City Airport has thoroughly reviewed the report issued by the AAIB. Following advice from NATS and the CAA procedural changes have been made which comply with the AAIB's safety recommendations."

So that's alright then. It's just a shame that sentiment isn't echoed elsewhere beyond the LCY Public Relations machine!

On the same day that the near collision report was released, comments were also released from David Miliband (really, the timing could not have been better/or worse depending upon which side you sit on expansion) asserting that a 3rd runway at Heathrow should go ahead. So where to fit the aircraft in then David, and what about the 1000s of Londoners who are dying prematurely from air pollution, which airports add to in aviation and road traffic pollution ten fold? What about the fact that there's only 1000ft between Heathrow and LCY flights, sometimes dangerously less. We hope you are prepared to take the consequences of your blinkered view of safety over London by supporting more flights in what is already the most complex, and busy flight path area in the world.

We don't need more flights, we need the flights we already have to be operated safely and more efficiently before the unthinkable happens. LCY cannot expand without an accumulative effect not only on pollution (air and noise) but also on flight paths with Heathrow and also the other various flights that overfly London and the south east.

BREAKING NEWS: Boris Johnson appears to have committed at Mayor's Question Time to be reconsidering his position on supporting the 50% expansion at London City Airport in light of the near collision last year. More to follow.

PRESS RELEASE: The Two Faces of Boris

For immediate use

At the public hearing into the London Plan last Friday (1) held at City Hall it became clear that the Mayor, Boris Johnston, is adopting a very different approach to expansion at each of London’s airports. He has backed the Government in ruling out any further expansion at Heathrow but is supporting plans for a 50% increase in flight numbers at City Airport.

At Friday’s hearing the Mayor’s office made it clear that he supports Newham Council’s bid for expansion at City Airport (2).

Fight the Flights (3) spokesman Alan Haughton, who gave evidence at the public hearing, said “It is not at all clear why the Mayor is adopting such a contradictory attitude. There is no hard evidence that a 50% in flights at City Airport will do anything to boost the local economy. What we do know is that it will bring yet more noise and air pollution to one of the most deprived areas of London.”

The Mayor has made is clear that he would not support any further increase in flights beyond 50%. But Haughton commented: “Boris has come up with no good reason why expansion can’t just stop now.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). The Mayor is required to produce the London Plan by the Government. At present public hearings are taking place into what policies the Mayor should adopt in the Plan. The Plan, once published, will cover a 20 year period. On Friday 10th the hearing considered the whole question of aviation policy.
(2). Newham Council, the planning authority, have given permission for a 50% increase in flight numbers at the airport but Fight the Flights have been granted permission to challenge the decision in the High Court by means of a Judicial Review. The Judicial Review hearing will take place on 18th and 19th November.

(3). Fight the Flights is a residents community group, non party political and anti expansion, not anti aviation.

Web:http://www.fighttheflights.com/  

Blog: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/


For further information:

Fight the Flights spokesperson: 07984 300558 


Press Release dated: 13/9/10

Tomorrows Speakers at LCY Demo - End Domestic Flights Now!

PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS NO DLR SERVICE BETWEEN WESTFERRY, BECKTON AND WOOLWICH ARSENAL - RAIL REPLACEMENT BUSES WILL BE RUNNING- PLEASE CHECK TFL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

Schedule for the day :

11.00 am Demonstration outside the main entrance to City Airport, London, begins.

12.00 noon Speeches outside City Airport –including

John Stewart (leader of the succesful anti-Heathrow expansion campaign),

Murad Qureshi (GLA member, Labour) and

Darren Johnson (GLA member, Green Party).

12:15 “Train not plane” brigade bus leave City Airport on open-top bus, bound for Euston.

1.40 pm “Train not plane” brigade take special carriage on the train to Manchester.

3.50 pm “Train not plane” brigade arrives at Manchester Piccadilly station.

4.30 -5.45 pm “Train not plane” brigade join demonstration at Terminal 3, Manchester Airport.

Phil Thornhill from Campaign against Climate Change said “As unprecedented flooding devastates Pakistan, record temperatures stoke raging wildfires around Moscow and torrential downpours cause landslides that kill thousands in China - its time we got serious about the escalating threat from climate change before its too late. And we’re not getting serious about reducing climate-destabilising emissions until we get to grips with the their fastest growing source. Aviation symbolises the high-emission lifestyles of the developed world that are threatening billions, especially in the most vunerable communities, around the world. We can start to get to grips with the growth in aviation by illiminating the shorter journeys that can be made in other, less carbon-intensive, ways. This is the time to show we’re getting serious with aviation, serious with unnecessary high emissions, serious with climate change – serious, in other words, with the greatest threat facing humanity.”

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of ‘Fight the Flights’ said: “An end to unnecessary domestic flights for trips which could be taken by train, would have a hugely positive impact on the residents around London City Airport. Not only would they experience less flight noise and pollution from City Airports' domestic flights, but also from those heading to Heathrow. Travellers taking the train instead of the plane could help improve the lives and health of thousands of Londoners.”

Robbie Gillett from the ‘Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport’ coalition said "There are currently around 38 flights per day between Manchester and the London hubs. Airlines such as Flybe who promote these domestic flights are encouraging airport expansion and threatening the stability of the climate in order to line their own pockets. These flights are the most unnecessary of all and should stop immediately."

CEO of Newham Tells Waltham Forest 'As far as I am aware, there is no substantive challenge"

"I can assure you that the noise and other impacts of the proposed increase in flights to/from LCA were fully assessed and considered by Newham's officers and considered by Newham's Officers and members with the assistance of consultants, and there has been, so far as I am aware, no challenge to the substantive conclusions of that process" Quote from Joe Duckworth, CE of Newham Council, 8 April 2010 in a response to Waltham Forest Councils CE, Andrew Kilburn.

____________________________________________________

Fight the Flights launched a legal challenge against Newham Councils decision to allow a 50% expansion of flights from London City Airport, in October FTF were granted a protective costs order by the High Court to challenge the decision, in January the High Court granted permission for the FTF to take their legal challenge to the High Court on all 3 limbs:

(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.

The legal challenge goes to the High Court in London on the 18th & 19th of November 2010

Judicial Review Hearing Date Set

The hearing date for the legal challenge against Newham Council in regard of the approval to allow London City Airport to expand to 120,000 flights per year has been set for:

18-19th November 2010 

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

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

High Court Ruling throws expansion plans at London City airport into question

Greenpeace press release:

PLANS to expand London City airport were thrown into serious doubt today when a High Court Judge said that the Government’s 2003 aviation policy didn’t fully take into account the effects of climate change.

In a damning ruling handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice today, Lord Justice Carnwath said that the Government’s 2003 Aviation White Paper – the basis for expansion at Heathrow airport and dozens of other airports around the country, including London City – needs to be re-thought in the light of climate change and the UK’s climate change laws. This effectively means that the white paper must now be radically over-hauled so that it is in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.

Climate Campaigner Anna Jones said “Today’s ruling exposes a Government airport expansion policy that is out of control. This country needs a better railway system not new runways. The Government cannot continue to ignore the impact of aviation on climate change. They should shelve all airport expansion plans now; every increase in capacity makes our problems worse.”

The judgement was delivered in response to a Judicial Review brought by Greenpeace and 12 other groups, including local councils, residents groups and other leading green groups. They argued that the consultation process which led to the decision to allow a 3^rd runway at Heathrow to be built was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK’s overall climate change targets.

The Climate Change Committee – an independent watchdog created by the act – recently advised the Government that around half of the planned airport expansion in the UK would have to be scrapped if the Government’s own aviation emissions target is to be met and that therefore it needed to review its 2003 aviation expansion policy.

For more info contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255

Redbridge Writes to Sir Robin Wales On Lack of Consultation

RogerHampson
ChiefExecutive
www.redbridge.gov.uk
Sir Robin Wales
4th Floor, West Wing
London Borough of Newham
Newham Dockside
1000 Dockside Road
London
E16 2QU

Direct line 020 8708 2100
Fax 020 8478 2356
roger.hampson@redbridge.gov.uk
Town Hall, PO Box 2, High Road
Ilford, Essex. IG1 1DD

Our ref
Your ref
Date 8th December 2009

Dear Sir Robin,

Planning application to increase flights to/ from London City Airport

You may be aware that recent changes to flight paths in this part of London and your Council’s approval to a planning application to increase the number of aircraft movements in and out of City Airport has been subject of considerable concern over recent months amongst residents within Redbridge.

As a result, this issue was raised at Full Council on 19th November 2009 when the Council agreed to recognise residents' concern over (a) the expansion of London City Airport, and (b) flight path changes relating to "stacking" for London Heathrow Airport; it believes that the increased number of flights using these airports and the associated noise nuisance and environmental impact is detrimental to Redbridge residents. The Council decided that it will oppose further expansion or changes to flight paths or the mode of operation of airports (including without limitation any extension to the hours of operation of airports whether temporary or permanent) which would result in an increase in aircraft noise suffered by residents of this Borough.

I was asked to write to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and NATS to ask what action they took to consult residents of Redbridge on the changes to flight paths and London City Airport expansion. Additionally, Members instructed that I write to London City Airport in response to their consultation on their proposed Noise Action Plan 2009-2014 stating that this Council is opposed to any further expansion of London City Airport, changes to its mode of operation, hours of operation, flight paths or any increase in the number of flights which would result in any increase in aircraft noise suffered by residents of this Borough.

Also, and my reason for writing to you, is that Members asked me to convey to you their concern at the lack of consultation between our authorities in connection with the recent planning decision to increase the number of take offs and landings at City Airport.

Clearly the two matters of flight paths and City Airport expansion have become related issues in so far as the impact on Redbridge is concerned and this has had anegative impact on residents of Redbridge. My Council does not believe that sufficient attention was given to the coupled effect of these changes on Redbridge in making a decision. Clearly, the impact of the proposal to increase the number of flights ought to have been considered in tandem with flight path changes.

Members believe that this information should have been sought and sent to Redbridge. Under the Town and Country Planning General Development Procedure Order 1995 the procedure for consultation between neighbouring authorities where land of a neighbouring authority is affected is for the deciding Local Planning Authority to send the application and related documents to the neighbouring planning authority. I understand that this procedure was not followed because Newham planning officers felt that the actual movement of flights beyond taking off and landing at the airport was beyond the scope of the planning application and a matter for NATS.

However, Members feel that the change in flight paths has had an adverse impact on Redbridge and this was relevant to the application for increased aircraft movements. Therefore, the full consultation process between planning authorities ought to have been followed with the provision of all relevant information.

Clearly, this Council would appreciate your views on what matters were taken into account in deciding the application and assurances that any further applications which could result in increased movements from City Airport over Redbridge is subject to the full consultation procedures between planning authorities.

Yours sincerely,

ROGER HAMPSON
CHIEF EXECUTIVE

This letter was provided by courtesy of Redbridge Council through a FOI request.

Santaclaus Highlights High Flying Hypocrisy at London City Airport

The Climate Campers have paid a visit to LCY to meet those politicians who claim to care about the environment, but will of course be flying to Copenhagen.


Climate Camp press release from Indymedia:

Climate Refugee Santas in City Airport Protest
Published: Sunday 06 December 2009 20:22 by Fyi

CLIMATE CAMP PRESS RELEASE:
REFUGEE SANTAS VS POLICE AT LONDON CITY AIRPORT

20 Climate activists dressed as Santa Claus were pushed out of London City Airport departures lounge today by police and security guards. Presents of cartoon books about the problems with carbon trading, carbon ration books, and toy trains were left undelivered. These were meant for the passengers on the final flight to Copenhagen before the COP15 climate talks begin.
The Santas' photographer was arrested. The activists managed to publish a picture of the arrest on Twitter (1) along with another image of the Santas in action (2)


The activists sang Climate Change-themed Christmas carols, including "Silent Plight" and "God Rest We Merry Carbon Traders", in the airport lobby.


A Santa Claus said: "The hypocrisy of flying to the Copenhagen talks is unbelievable. It just goes to show that for the politicians and corporate lobbyists in Copenhagen, these talks are no more than business as usual.


"If governments agree a deal based on false solutions like carbon trading, I shall have to take direct action by getting stuck in a whole lot more chimneys"
Climate refugee santas at City Airport singing as the last flights leave before Cop15 starts
Photographer for Climate Refugee Santas is Arrested

Contact: 07040 900 905press at climatecamp.org.uk
http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/


NOTES FOR EDITORS
(1) http://twitpic.com/sf3yp
(2) http://twitpic.com/sf3ew

FTF at The Green Bazaar- Residents say not happy with London City Airport

Congratulations to the Green Party for running a successful and enjoyable event in the Waltham Forest and Redbridge Green Bazaar last Saturday. The event saw a selection of quality stalls and was well received by visitors.

FTF attended with facts and information on the effect of London City Airport expansion and flight path changes, and how these are already affecting the communities in the borough. Leaflets, badges and t shirts were available whilst a rolling screen presentation was projected onto the wall.

Yet again,we had so many residents telling us how badly affected they are by London City Airport flights, and also that even though they do not want the airport to close, they do not support any expansion at the site. We also had other residents who said that they had moved away from areas affected from the flight path, only to now find themselves yet again blighted by aircraft noise.

A local resident generously donated an organically grown vegetable box from the fruits of their work at their own allotment, and this was raffled at the end of the event. It proved very popular with visitors to the bazaar and helped us to raise much needed funds for the legal challenge that FTF is currently pursuing.

The raffle was kindly drawn by Jean Lambert, MEP pictured above with Chair of FTF, Anne-Marie Griffin.

The veggie box was later delivered to the lucky winner Joyce, pictured on right hand side in photo to left.

Redbridge Council Deal Another Blow to Newham Over LCY

Last month it was Waltham Forest Council condemning Newham Council over it's decision to approve a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport without consulting them...now it's Redbridge Council's turn to. It seems that Newham Council won few friends when they inflicted London City Airport aircraft noise on proportionately more in other boroughs than even in their own:

Redbridge Full Council Meeting

Thursday, 19th November, 2009 7.15 p.m.
Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD

12.
To consider the following Notices of Motion:-
(i) Expansion of London Airport

Motion to be Moved by Councillor Hoskins and Seconded by Councillor Cleaver:

"This Council recognises residents' concern over (a) the expansion of London City Airport, and (b) flight path changes relating to "stacking" for London Heathrow Airport, believes the increased number of flights using these airports - and the associated noise nuisance and environmental impact - is detrimental to Redbridge residents.

Therefore this Council requests that the Chief Executive :

Carries out an immediate investigation into what Redbridge Council knew about the London City expansion and flight path changes, and what action was taken on the Council's behalf.

Writes to the Mayor of Newham, condemning the inadequate consultation and their decision to allow further expansion of London City Airport, stressing the negative impact this decision has had on residents of Redbridge.

Writes to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and NATS to ask what action they took to consult residents of Redbridge on the changes to flight paths and London City Airport expansion.

Asks the EU commissioner to investigate the expansion of London City Airport and the impact it has on residents of Redbridge and East London.

Investigates the option of Redbridge Council launching its own legal action against Newham Council over its inadequate consultation on the expansion of London City Airport.

This Council requests that the Chief Executive reports his findings back to councillors at the earliest possible opportunity."

Waltham Forest Cllrs Blast 'Arrogance' of Newham Council

A Liberal Democrat motion submitted to Waltham Forest Council demanding action over the lack of consultation on the expansion of London City Airport was last night unanimously supported by ALL parties. This blow has been dealt to London City Airport and Newham Council after an avalanche of complaints was received by Waltham Forest councillors, many from residents who have been newly affected by London City Airport aircraft noise over their homes.

The motion (see beneath) requested a list of items to be addressed and actioned including an investigation into why Waltham Forest was not formally consulted over the expansion of flights at London City Airport by Newham Council. As Newham Council is the planning authority for the airport, it is Newham's responsibility to formally consult on any changes proposed by the airport.

The Liberal Democrats have shown an outstanding committment to their communities on putting this issue on the agenda. As a result, it is most welcome to now see an all party group set up to deal with the injustice that Waltham Forest residents have been dealt by being denied a voice. Cllr Bob Sullivan stated, as quoted in an article in the Waltham Forest Guardian:

“The planning application was granted by Newham Council. Who decided they could impose on us more noise and pollution without consulting us? How arrogant.”

Cllr Qureshi who led on this issue showed his committment on the councils role in cutting carbon emissions, stating:

"This problem will not go away. It is going to stay with us and we need to fight against it.”

Congratulations to the Leyton and Waltham Forest Liberal Democrats, and to Labour and the Conservatives who will now be working on this as a community issue in the all party group for the benefit of the residents. It is refreshing to see a responsible all party council leading by example, putting their residents and the environment on the agenda, and not ignoring the erosion of quality of life, health and environment.

The full details of the original motion submitted are displayed beneath:

NOTICES OF MOTION

A. Expansion of London City Airport

Notice of the above Motion was given in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.
Councillor F. Qureshi will move; Councillor R. Sullivan will second

This Council recognises resident concern over the expansion of London City Airport, and believes that the increased number of flights using the airport – and the associated noise nuisance and environmental impact - is detrimental to Waltham Forest residents.

Therefore this Council requests that the Chief Executive:

· Carries out an immediate investigation into what Waltham Forest Council knew about London City Airport expansion and flight path changes, and what action was taken on the Council’s behalf.

· Writes to the Mayor of Newham, condemning the lack of consultation and their decision to allow further expansion of London City Airport, stressing the negative impact this decision has had on residents of Waltham Forest.

· Writes to the Mayor of London asking why he supported the expansion of London City Airport and what consideration was given to the detrimental impact of the expansion on residents of Waltham Forest.

· Write to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and NATS to ask what action they took to consult residents of Waltham Forest on the changes to flight paths and London City expansion.

· Asks the EU commissioner to investigate the expansion of London City Airport and the impact it has had on residents of Waltham Forest and East London.

· Investigates the option of Waltham Forest launching its own legal action against Newham Council over the non-consultation on the expansion of London City Airport.

This Council requests that the Chief Executive reports his findings back to councillors at the earliest opportunity.

TODAY! Let's give some noise back to London City Airport

Protest against more flights at London City Airport

Tuesday September 29th at 11:50am

London City Airport introduces a new business-only service from London to New York.

A return ticket costs over £3,000. So, that's luxury for a few rich passengers - and more noise pollution for everyone living under the flight path.

By 2030, London City Airport aims to add another 90,000 flights each year to its timetable, including bigger, noisier, jets. How much more do they expect us to take?

The borough of Newham is already suffering from severe air pollution problems (Newham has higher than average asthma and infant death rates for the UK). A huge increase in flights will make our community even more vulnerable.

If the airport is going to make a load of noise, so are we.

On the morning of the first London-New York flight, a group of local people will be gathering outside the entrance to show the airport what it's like to be disturbed by unwanted noise. We're bringing pots and pans, trumpets,whistles, horns.anything that makes a racket. We'll also be wearing a selection of colourful masks to give the protest, a positive, carnival feel.

Come and join us! 11:50am outside the airport entrance.

Press Release: City Airport admits it got its sums wrong

Estimated number of jobs created by expansion cut by 50%

London City Airport has admitted that it over-estimated the number of jobs which would be created by the proposed expansion of the airport by 50%. In a letter to local MP Stephen Timms, seen by the pressure group Fight the Flights, Newham Council reveals that the Airport now acknowledges that there will only be 480 new jobs.

A letter says that “The Airport itself now accepts that the application was lodged before the current economic downturn, bringing with it a downturn in demand for air travel, and that additional employment to the extent shown in the original application is unlikely now to be realised by 2010.”

Newham Council recently gave London City Airport permission to increase the number of flights using the airport by 50%.

A spokesperson from Fight the Flights, said, “Newham Council has always argued it favoured expansion because of the number of jobs it would create. Now we discover it is no more than work in a big superstore. Yet, the extra noise caused by the planes will bring misery to tens of thousands.”

ENDS

For further information:

fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated: 24 August 2009