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.

Evening Standard Cover Boris/TFL Cable Car/ London City Airport Crash Zone Saga

Boris Johnson's London cable car 'will cross airport crash zone'

Pippa Crerar, City Hall Editor

Boris Johnson's plan for a cable car across the Thames was in doubt today after it emerged the route will cross a "crash zone" around London City Airport.

Residents have raised serious safety concerns and called for a delay until an investigation takes place.

They say the cable car will pass through the extended public safety zone that would come into force following an increase in flights of up to 50 per cent. It means up to 340 people at any one time could be at risk if a plane crash-landed or overshot the runway. The cable car, approved by Greenwich and Newham councils and the Thames Gateway Development corporation, would carry up to 2,500 passengers an hour between North Greenwich and Royal Docks. Continued on the Evening Standard here

Transport for London, London City Airport and The Cable Car

Pictured above: CAA revised London City Airport PSZ Map

We've been closely following the story of the cable car crossing from North Greenwich to the Royal Docks in Newham and the issue around the Public Safety Zone (PSZ/crash zone). Many of you will know we are fairly familiar with matters of the PSZ and have written about it many times before which can be seen here, here, here and here.

Transport For London (and interested parties) want a cable car to cross the Thames, from the South to the North and land at the West end of the Royal Docks, Newham. There's just one problem though: the cable car goes right through the current PSZ of London City Airport. Low flying planes on landing and take off, a cable, cable houses, and an estimated 5000 travellers an hour, all at the end of London City Airport's runway. It's a bit like putting an electric fan heater in the far corner of a bathroom and hoping that it doesn't get splashed with water (please don't take anything electrical in the bathroom, it is a hazard to life). If an incident were to happen where the cable was broken, it appears the whole cable car system would be affected. We do not want to see anything like the Cavalese Cable Car Incident happen in London.

It appears however that the authorities wish to down play, or actually ignore the PSZ policy which is written by the DfT. Richard de Cani , Director of Strategy and Policy at Transport for London, who submitted the planning application, even went so far to state in the Newham Council Planning Meeting minutes that:

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

So that's alright then!

What concerns us is that TFL choose to ignore something as important as your safety when the DfT have clearly put a policy in place for all airports to protect and reduce the risk to persons in the areas each end of runways. TFL did however suddenly find an interest in the PSZ as they spent a considerable amount of time and days on this blog during the week of the planning meetings.

The DfT circular on the PSZ policy is quite clear: no new developments are to be built in PSZ areas and the people present in the PSZ should be reduced over time. There is a clause for low intensity transport, but 5000 passengers an hour dangling in cable cars from a cable that goes right across the PSZ and flight path of London City Airport flights is not 'low intensity'. The PSZ has grown as the planes have got bigger and more flights are allowed, so the size of the PSZ is simply a further blight on the use of land in East London for regeneration, but it seems that some authorities want to have their cake and eat it, especially if the risk is someone elses. Who better than the unsuspecting public?

Even London City Airport themselves raised the concern of Crossrail using an area of land within the PSZ in the Royal Docks and objected in their petition to the House of Lords:

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

We are told that Transport for London's Richard DiCani was alegedly clasping an out of date PSZ map as his justification for not needing to consider the PSZ at one of the planning meetings. However considering the ATWP is quite clear that any planning authority considering applications around an airport should always take into account the full masterplan, and that the Civil Aviation Authority had released a new PSZ map in mid December to both Greenwich and Newham Councils (which is a notification, not consultation, there is a distinct difference between the two) which clearly indicated that the cable car was to travel through the PSZ.

The extent of the PSZ (albeit different to the most recently published map) had also been indicated in predictive maps in the London City Airport expansion application, so there is really little excuse for the PSZ and the associated risks not to have been fully considered as required by the DfT circular and policy.

What is even more surprising is that it is very hard to find where the PSZ has been properly addressed at all in the Cable Car application process and three authorities went ahead and approved it 2 weeks ago. It is that which appears to have raised enough concerns from Friends of the Earth and a local Tower Hamlets resident to challenge this approval, both of whom we are assured fully support a cable car, but not at the expense of the safety of those on the ground and passengers.

The latest development in this sorry saga is the release of a wake turbulence report from London City Airport (more to follow on this in the coming days!). The cable car not only sits in the PSZ, it also sits in the wake turbulence path as modelled by Halcrow. At the Greenwich Planning meeting it was stated that "the applicant has been advised by London City Airport that wake turbulence will not be a significant issue". Considering the reports indicate that there have been two incidents of wake turbulence damage recorded (considerable damage to a roof of a building in one) and it appears these have been so since the introduction of larger jets, it seems that the focus should be on the word 'significant'. Wake turbulence is heard 3-4 times a week at the end of the runway, and cannot be ruled out as not a risk to the cable car system at all - hence the use of the word 'significant' no doubt! We suspect that most passengers in the cable car would not wish to be caught up in a wake turbulence vortex, not unless they were expecting a white knuckle ride across the Thames.

To illustrate the impact of wake turbulence on the ground, let alone to a cable car, this may assist: "In the late 1970s I was driving north on I-5, passing the end of SAN Lindbergh Field. A Delta L-1011 was just touching down on 27 and I noticed that a palm tree in the median of the freeway was flailing wildly. A moment later the vortex hit me. It almost rolled my VW bus over." More documentation of just how serious it can be read here and here.

We will be posting a lot more on wake turbulence, what it is and what residents experience in a wake turbulence attack in the coming days.

Now objections have been submitted to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and he has been requested to call the application in on safety grounds. Boris is going to have to deal with just one of the consequences of his support for London City Airport expansion now, how untimely that it should come so soon!

We are just struck by how the PSZ suddenly became less important and one that apparently local authorities can afford not to fully consider to protect the safety of individuals around airports.

10% Decline in Flight Demand At London City Airport And The Taxpaying Scapegoats

Think it's noisy now? London City Airport shamelessly breached its planning agreement 4 years ago, (and Newham took no action at all) by allowing almost 20,000 more flights to use the airport than allowed - taking them up to around 90,000 air traffic movements that year. That year was a nightmare, and for many it was the tipping point from not being bothered too much by LCY operations at all, to being very bothered about the increasing noise levels. Now the Civil Aviation Authority statistics show that in 2010 the air traffic movements (atms) have plummeted back down to 59,919 offering a respite of sorts - but one that is purely as a result of lack of demand and which will change as quick as demand for flights changes.

If you think current noise levels are a problem at 59,919 atms then just imagine what it will be like at 120,000 atms per year and the impact on the daily lives of 100,000's of East Londoner's. Back in 2008, John Austin the then Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead made his concerns well known regarding the proposal to increase flights from 79,616 to 120,000 per annum:

“Many of my constituents are naturally concerned about increased levels of noise and atmospheric pollution if the planning application were granted. If permission is granted for an additional 40, 384 flights per annum over 260 week days, the airport will be allowed to operate an additional 155 flights per day".

So an 155 extra flights a day on top of the past allowance. If you are already affected things can sadly only get worse, and if you notice them but are not unduly bothered at the moment then be prepared as a 100% increase in flights each day will without a doubt further deteriorate already ridiculous noise levels and air pollution in the capital. We already know that noise levels in East London are comparable to those experienced in Kew due to noise research carried out, we also know that there is an ever building accumulative noise level of both London City and Heathrow jets overhead.

Surprisingly, Boris Johnson wants to make this worse for you too: he supports expansion at all airports apart from Heathrow, and in addition to continued expansion and more runways around the south east Boris Johnson wants a floating airport on the Thames Estuary. His plan isn't to replace other airport expansion, but to simply add to the capacity in the skies above us. These are the skies that both NATS and the CAA have already indicated that there is not enough space in. So what's changed? The aviation lobby, personal interests, politicians? Clearly the demand for flights is not there to support expansion plans despite their pulled out of the hat claims. LCY may keep spinning the PR of new flight routes, but they are not advertising how many flight routes have been dropped due to being unsuccessful and a lack of demand.

New flight routes being launched and then dropped at LCY within months does not indicate there is a demand from the public at all- Newquay to London City Airport was a great example. But of course at the time it was feted as having HUGE demand! Of course, that's why it's now completely disappeared off the timetable with many of the others. It's simply greed, and they can afford to be greedy: Aviation pays NO VAT and guess what: City Jet's new Boss on the block Christine Oumieres was reported on the Evening Standard website (sadly for some bizarre reason the item appears to have been pulled off the website yesterday - search for 'City Jet Tax' under the news category on Google and you'll find the listing):

"CityJet boss tells Government to look elsewhere for taxation targets‎"The boss of short-haul specialist carrier CityJet today fired a warning to the Government over making airlines a "tax scapegoat". ...

One resident commented:

"What a (bad) joke - no VAT or duty on fuel, no VAT on servicing, spares..... and they still can't make money? As the old soldier has it: "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined". It can't be blamed on APD since "all those City types" whose vitally important travel is the airport's raison d'etre are able to claim back their travel costs as business expenses. So perhaps CityJet aren't charging enough".

Obviously airports like LCY refusing to pay their security costs to around the tune of £5million a year and letting London Taxpayers pay it for them, and ZERO VAT is just not enough for this aviation industry. I think we ALL know who the taxpaying scapegoats are here - and they are the taxpaying residents of London and beyond (especially those that don't even use the airport!).

2010 Total Air Transport movements for the whole year (CAA)

LONDON CITY 59919 -10.4

HEATHROW 449283 -2.4

GATWICK 233567 -4.8

STANSTED 143069 -8.3

City Airport’s expansion is a green light to increased misery for many more Londoners – Caroline Pidgeon

CONTACT: Mark Morris, Senior Press Officer GLA Liberal Democrats, 020 7983 4336/ 07917214788

Immediate release: 20 January 2011

Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group, commenting on today’s Judicial Review decision upholding Newham Council’s decision to significantly expand London City Airport said:

"Many people in east and south east London are already facing serious problems with noise and disturbance from air flights. Today's decision provides the green light to increased misery for many more Londoners.

“I remain convinced that greater scrutiny should have been given to the initial planning decision by Newham Council. Questions also remain as to why Greenwich Council never objected to the planning decision despite the serious impact that the airport is already having on so many of its residents.

"Most significantly this decision sends out the message that the economic benefits of aviation are still being exaggerated while its environmental harm is largely overlooked."

ENDS

Press Release: DISMAY AS JUDGE ALLOWS NEWHAM’S GREEN LIGHT TO LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION

Friends of the Earth press release :

Embargo: For immediate release, Thursday, 20 January 2011

Contact: Neil Verlander, Friends of the Earth press office, 0207 566 1649

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights: Tel: 07984 300558

Local people and green campaigners reacted with disappointment today after a High Court judge refused to overturn Newham Council’s decision to expand London City Airport. Campaigners are now considering an appeal.

Residents, represented by Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre, took the council to court in November last year after it decided to allow a 50 per cent increase in flights. The community representatives argued that Newham Council failed to consider changes to Government policy on climate change and did not properly consult boroughs and residents in the surrounding area.

Reacting to the decision, Chair of local campaign group Fight the Flights Anne-Marie Griffin said:

“We are desperately disappointed by this judgement.

“London City Airport already causes major disturbance and pollution for people living locally – the disappointment we feel at this outcome will be shared by thousands of residents across East London who are severely affected by London City Airport’s operations but were not consulted about expansion.

“Without clear guidelines to local councils on aviation expansion, the emissions targets set have no hope of being met.

“Fight the Flights is currently taking legal advice as to whether to appeal.”

Friends of the Earth’s London Campaigner Jenny Bates said:

“Airport expansion will have a terrible impact on local people’s quality of life, as well as increase air pollution breaches and undermine efforts to tackle climate change.

“Many of the destinations served by London City Airport could easily be reached by fast rail travel.

“If this Government wants to keep its pledge to be the greenest ever it must develop a transport strategy which encourages people to use greener forms of transport over climate-wrecking flights.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The High Court hearing took place on Thursday 18 and Friday 19 November 2010 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London.

2. Newham Council's decision to expand London City Airport by 50 per cent will increase flights from the airport from 73,000 to 120,000 a year. The decision was made in October 2008, after which Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre submitted a number of letters on behalf of Fight The Flights to Newham council in protest, raising the issues of climate change, air quality and race equality.

3. On 15 January 2009 the Government announced its intention to reduce aviation emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050. Newham Council issued a formal grant of planning permission at a meeting on 8 July 2009 without taking into account the Government's target in their decision-making.

4. Fight the Flights: http://www.fighttheflights.com/

5. Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre provides access to legal advice and representation to people wishing to use the law to protect their communities and the environment. The Centre operates a free legal advice line for members of the public on 0808 801 0405 (open between 6.30-8.30 pm on alternate Wednesdays).

6. Friends of the Earth believes the environment is for everyone. We want a healthy planet and a good quality of life for all those who live on it. We inspire people to act together for a thriving environment. More than 90 per cent of our income comes from individuals so we rely on donations to continue our vital work. For further information visit www.foe.co.uk.

The Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone) is getting bigger - will it cover your home?

The Civil Aviation Authority has submitted a proposal to revise the public safety zone (PSZ) at London City Airport. The proposal can be seen here and most importantly maps are included so that you will be able to see if your property is currently or will soon be in the PSZ crash zone. Organisations and residents who will be affected are invited to respond. The closing date for submissions is the 2nd February.

More information about what a PSZ is can be found here. Long term followers of ours will be aware that we have raised multiple concerns about the PSZ and consultation procedures in the past, here, here, here and we are yet again dissapointed that it appears that the very people this change will affect have not been consulted and will be completely unaware of this proposal. Greenwich Council appear to have made no effort at all to ensure that the areas affected are kept informed by those responsible.

As a general view of the PSZ map the only residential properties covered by the PSZ are in:

West Thamesmead, Greenwich, SE28 therefore if you live in this area this is of particular importance to you.

No properties appear to be covered by the PSZ in Newham.

If you wish to respond to the CAA proposals and require assistance to do so please email: fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk and we will do all we can to assist.

London City Airport Fairground ride-like buzz all tax free

This week we hear that landing at London City Airport is one on the most stunning airport approaches in the world "making for a fairground ride-like buzz". The Top 10 released by Private Fly is run by Adam Twidell who is an ex-RAF pilot and joined up with London City Airport to develop RAF Northolt for private jet use. Like London City Airport Private Jet centre, RAF Northolt security is fully paid for by us the taxpayer. London City Airports security alone is in excess of £5.5 million pa. The interesting fact about Private Fly's list is that London itself is the only major city over flown and London City Airport has the most densely populated surroundings. Flights pass over City Hall, London Eye, St Pauls and Canary Wharf to name but a few.

In light of the recent near miss over Hackney involving one of these private jets it is hard to believe that high profile, densely populated areas in a major city can be overflown while pilots get a "fairground ride-like buzz". The private jet centre at London City Airport directly contributed to the breaking of permitted flight allowances from the airport. Up to 15,000 private jets a year flew from the airport yet where not included in any ATM's (Air Traffic Movement)counts. They were just anomalies not included in any targets or totals yet residents got to breath the fumes and hear the noise from them. Plane Stupid highlighted this when they breached the LCY perimeter and locked themselves onto a private jet.

Meanwhile London City Airport are throwing around "economic impact assessment" figures with wild abandon and no proof. A report can be expected in 2011 showing how it benefits the economy to £500 million annually - the same as a large supermarket. The airport states that it contributes £21 million a year in air passenger duty. What they don't tell you is that the Private Jets pay no APD (Air Passenger Duty) at all - a loss to the economy of at our estimate of £1.5 million pa. Nor do they tell you they pay no VAT on the fuel they use. The only contribution these uber rich users make is to noise, air quality and climate change.

The Human Cost of London City Airports Expansion

Over the past three years of the Fight the Flights campaign we have seen a steady increase in residents getting in contact with us. Over the past 18 months this has risen dramatically. What they all indicate is the problem of London City Airport (LCY) flight noise, and the accumulative effect of flight noise from both London City Airport and Heathrow, and how far the problem spreads out across East and South East London.  We appreciate that London City Airport doesn't like to hear this fact (they have the advantage of not having to listen, unlike most residents under their flight path) but they have contributed significantly to bringing West London noise levels to East and South East London.

We have also noticed that the emails from residents have steadily become more and more unhappy, for many at the realisation that they are not entitled to any noise insulation despite having been given that impression by comments made by London City Airport and the planning authority, Newham Council, in the past. Others have been massively affected by the change of flight paths by the Civil Aviation Authority. Newham has readily passed the buck on this, as do London City Airport on this issue. But if London City Airport flight paths had to be changed due to jets not being able to use the same departure routes as the old propellor planes, who asked to use the jets, and who approved their use, and the additional flights in the past?  Relevent points to consider.

Residents aren't buying the pass the buck scenario any longer as their private lives in their homes and communities have become increasingly invaded by the activities of London City Airport and of course also Heathrow. Bearing in mind that flights are currently down around 25,000 per annum on what they were 2 years ago, when Newham Council allowed London City Airport to breach it's flight limits by around 20,000, then you will appreciate that things are only going to get worse when flight numbers increase again.  This is why it is essential that residents continue to speak out, write/email their local councillors, MPs, MEPs, GLA member, Civil Aviation Authority, local papers and complain to Newham Council, the planning authority for London City Airport, by email or letter. We appreciate that this takes time, but it is the only way that politicians will understand the breadth of the problem and take steps towards assisting you.

Residents are always welcome to contact FTF for help and advice and we will always do our best to assist or put you in contact with someone who can help. Please be patient if we take time to respond though, which can occasionally happen due to our workload. What is important is that if you have only began to notice aircraft noise and are disturbed by it recently then you understand that you are not alone. It is not unreasonable and residents are certainly not a nuisance if they complain. It is your right to complain if you are being negatively effected and we believe it is your right to expect to be listened to and for your concerns to be acted upon.  There are 100,000s of residents who are experiencing the same right across London, you are most certainly not alone.  

We'd also ask you to consider donating to FTF using the paypal facility on the website. FTF runs financially on next to nothing, but we do need to pay for things such as website domain costs and the odd ream of paper. Donations however small are very much appreciated! You can donate on Paypal HERE

In the meantime we'd like to share just a few of the comments we've received from residents which we feel indicate the impact of the dreadful blight of newer but bigger noisier jets at London City airport, increased LCY flight numbers over the years, the flight path changes and in addition Heathrow flights. These are the hidden stories of lives blighted by an airport that got too big for it's own good and was allowed to runaway with expansion over the years:

"I have lived [by London City Airport] for 58 years and since the introduction of the new jets the noise is insufferable. In the inseption of the STOLPORT the airport installed double glazing to all properties front and back. But since the introduction of these new Jets the double glazing is not fit for purpose and the airport should upgrade to sound proof from the noise is there anything that you can do for the residents in [my road]". Resident of Newham.

"I live locally near Royal Victoria. I share your view against City Airport expansion and the flight noise. I have written to Newham council complaining about the noise but so far the response is not meaningful (mayor has not come back at of today). What i was told that they categorise the plane by its noise emission so they can have less jet planes compared to more propeller planes (i really don't think Newham council keeps any record of how many jet planes fly out of the city airport every day). You are doing a great job for the local community. Keep up the effort!!!!" Resident of Newham.

"I have lived in this borough [Newham] for nearly fifty years, I have seen a lot of changes but this one is the worse, I cannot sleep at nights in the morning five o'clock on the dot they start to go every seconds another all through the day one can't hear the television if one is on the phone, you cannot hear a word. I have spoken my landlord asking if they would install double glazing, they are too many planes, we need to do something about this annoyance." Resident of Newham.

"The noise pollution from flights in this area is unbearable. Every morning we are woken up by flights. We cannot go into the garden because airplanes are rattling overhead every 60 seconds. On the weekend relaxing at home is impossible because we sit with teeth on edge, waiting for the next jet to zoom overhead. I used to work from home but have been hounded out of the house by the noise and now have to go to local libraries or cafes to get some respite from the planes. So to recap: LCY stops us from being able to sleep. It stops us from being able to sit in our garden It stops us from being able to relax at home. And it stops me from being able to work at home. LCY stops us from being able to almost everything we should be able to do in our own home. Our choices? Spend £25,000 insulating the house (which we don't have). Or sell the house. Or have a miserable existence in our own home. To say that those are "choices" is nonsense." Resident of Tower Hamlets.

"I am still absolutely fed up with being disturbed by aircraft noise. I am woken up most mornings by aircraft noise at just after 06.00. From then on the flights are more or less continuous through the day- howling, roaring and whining. There are hundreds and hundreds of flights passing over my house every day. This is a relatively recent problem so there must have been a radical change in fight paths. WHY WAS THERE NO CONSULTATION?" Resident of Redbridge.

"When I moved to W Forest 10 years ago and to this address 5 yrs ago the only thing we heard was the ocassional vehicle and the birds! We thought we had found that peace until one day I think last year I was sitting in my back garden and heard several plane noises overhead. I really thought it unusual and it must be a one off. Then I notice it happened for a few more days and went on my computer to see if I could find any news about it.  I cannot believe that such an important change could be allowed without consulting with residents and have to think that this is because it affects poorer London boroughs in East London". Resident of Waltham Forest

"I live in Redbridge and although I appreciate that the noise I have to endure is minimal compared to those poor people living in the shadow of City Airport, it is really getting on my nerves, especially when low flying airplanes rumble through my double glazing after midnight! Oh.. there goes another one, as I'm typing". Resident of Redbridge

"In the last six months I have noticed inreased levels of air traffic in my area. Sometimes I can count three separate planes in the sky and the noise is becoming almost constant. I am very worried that additional flights will be granted into City Airport". Resident of Southwark 

"The volcanic ash crisis brought some relief from the noise, and reminded us all of how things used to be before they imposed this on us. Just this week the flights have been continuous after coming home from work, getting noisier and noisier which is almost unbearable". Resident of Havering.

"For several weeks now we have been noticing aircraft noise and believe it is an increase of flights going into City Airport. We live in Swanley  just on the edge of Dartford Borough. Obviously the noise here is not as bad as closer to the airport but does, I believe, show the extent of the problem. Before this year we have never noticed the planes, and have only noticed them more now, now that the weather is warmer and we have the windows and doors open. Additionally there are definitely more flights. If we sit in the garden at times we can hardly talk to each other".  Resident of Sevenoaks District Council

Fight The Flights Judicial Review: Day 1

Fight The Flights went to the High Court in London to challenge Newham Councils decision to allow a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. Nathalie Lieven QC acting for our group stated that Newham Council had made a mistake by not considering the governments change in policy on climate change.

We had support at the Law Courts from Darren Johnson GLA member Green Party, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP Lib Dems and Murad Qureshi GLA member Labour.

The Judicial Review will resume at 10AM on Friday the 19th of November 2010.

Here's a round up the of the press coverage:

Press 

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151502.html

http://news.uk.msn.com/environment/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155290137

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/residents_protest_over_airport_growth_1_2769585

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/docks_airport_flights_plan_challenged_in_court_today_1_729893

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/8675809.WANSTEAD__Anti_expansion_campaigners_relishing_day_in_court/

http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/london_city_airport_protest_as_high_court_hearing_begins_1_730208

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/685622/high_court_battle_over_london_city_airport_expansion.html

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/london-city-airport-protesters-take-newham-council-court-p-4794.html
">
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11780093&l t;/ p>


http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Development-Control/1041857/London-City-Airport-challenge-opens-High-Court/

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8672131.WANSTEAD__Airport_expansion_opponents_set_for_court_battle/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hiz-AJ2ID6Wyk0Sv-lPC0TDp3sMg?docId=N0119311289993992887A

http://www.lbc.co.uk/airport-expansion-challenge-goes-to-high-court-32792

TV:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj67   at 12:51 minutes

http://www.itv.com/london/fight-against-flights55445/


http://www.itv.com/london/city-airport-interview76235/


Radio:

BBC London: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c3j23/The_Breakfast_Show_with_Gaby_Roslin_and_Paul_Ross_18_11_2010/

LBC's news channel

Magic FM

Sky News Online

FTF High Court Challenge - This Thursday

The hearing 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 is to take place this thursday:

18-19th November 2010, expected start time of the hearing  is 10.30am for 1,1/2 days.

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

The grounds of challenge are:

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/. 

HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Major Report Confirms Aircraft Noise Levels in East London can Match Those in West London

For immediate use

The controversial research published last week by campaign group Fight the Flights which showed that aircraft noise levels in parts of East London can match those in West London has been backed up by earlier research carried out by the respected firm of acousticians, Bureau Veritas.

The report, No Place to Hide, published in 2007, found that the combined noise of Heathrow and City aircraft over Poplar matched the noise in parts of West London. It recorded 84 planes flying over in a two hour period, 45 Heathrow and 26 City Airport. The noise level of the Heathrow aircraft ranged from 60 – 69 decibels and the City aircraft from 64 – 82 decibels.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path and which commissioned the report, said, “Those sort of levels are higher than parts of West London. We can’t get away from the fact that aircraft noise has become a real problem in East London.”

Stewart was critical of City Airport’s reaction to the Fight the Flight’s findings, “the Airport cast doubt on the findings because they said they were not carried out in accordance with internationally-recognised methods of measuring aircraft noise or performed by independent professional acoustic consultants. Our report was and it came up with very similar results. Stephen Turner, the Director of Bureau Veritas is one of the country’s most respected acousticians. Indeed, his firm were the advisers to Newham Council when it approved plans for the expansion of the airport. The bosses of City Airport have to come to terms with the fact that they work in a very noisy industry and not hide behind fine-sounding words.”

ENDS

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated: 9/11/10

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.

£240,000 Newham boss quits in shock departure

After FTF reported that the Chief Executive of Newham stated: 'As far as I am aware, there is no substantive challenge" when being asked about London City Airport expansion by Waltham Forest Council more news hits the headlines:

As reported in the Evening Standard:

15.07.10

Britain's highest-paid town hall chief executive quit his £240,000-a-year job at Newham council suddenly today.

Joe Duckworth will leave the borough - one of the poorest in the country - after only two years. He was going on a family holiday before taking his career "in a new direction". The council would only say Mr Duckworth would be "moving on", and would not comment on speculation he was pushed.

His departure leaves the Olympic borough searching for a new chief just two years ahead of the Games.

Mr Duckworth was awarded the record salary when he was hired to head the council in one of Britain's most deprived areas. The figure did not include pension contributions, bonus payments or expenses.

The pay packet infuriated opposition councillors in Newham, which has 5,000 people in temporary accommodation, the highest proportion of overcrowded housing in Britain, and high levels of child poverty.

Mr Duckworth said: "The past two years have seen a step-change in the delivery of services. I have enjoyed my time but after two hectic years I have decided to take my career in a new direction and to seek new challenges."

Mayor of Newham Sir Robin Wales said: "Joe has brought great energy to the council and I am delighted that together we have improved so much for residents. Newham wishes him the very best for the future."

Before arriving in Newham, Mr Duckworth ran the Isle of Wight, where he angered locals by leaving the £150,000-a-year post after two years. He promised to transform the island's fortunes, but the council was only awarded a two-star rating, meaning services met only the most basic standards.

One readers comment:

Quote: Britain's highest-paid town hall chief executive quit his £240,000-a-year job at Newham council 

Joe Duckworth will leave the borough - one of the poorest in the country.

Says it all really, doesn’t it?

- mickinlondon, london, 15/07/2010 15:27

Are NATS Misleading Boris Over London City Airport Flight Path Changes?

Months ago, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson was asked by FTF to pledge his support for a public review into the flight path changes which the CAA and NATS had already implemented, but which the CAA are carrying out a 'private review' of. The Mayor did indeed pledge his support for a public review.

We asked Boris to ensure that this private review would be a public review. Boris replied on 14 May, however the response indicates that he may have been misled or perhaps there has simply been an misunderstanding regarding the situation with the CAA's 'private review'.

The Mayor responded:

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) announced in October 2009 that it will be undertaking a new consultation, on behalf of the CAA, on revised proposals for aircraft routes and airspace management in the area of South East England, referred to as Terminal Control North. This follows the consultation undertaken in 2008.

My officers have spoken to the stakeholder relations team at NATS. However, at this stage I have no further information regarding the scope of the proposals, as NATS does not expect the consultation to start before September at the earliest, due to the need to undertake further analysis.  NATS will be consulting the local authorities affected by the proposals, and I have given a commitment that I will work with the London Boroughs and the London Assembly to ensure that these proposals are widely and robustly considered. I will also work with NATS to ensure that these proposals are more widely publicised.

Well that all sounds great. However the key point that we asked the Mayor to ensure was that the CURRENT private review which the CAA are already carrying out on the London City Airport flight path changes was made public. This point has failed to be addressed and instead it appears that NATS may have misled the Mayor by indicating that a re-consultation is going to happen in September.  So now the Mayor believes that NATS are going to reconsult on the LCY flight path changes which were implemented in 2009. 

They are not and FTF have been told this by the Director of Airspace Policy at the CAA. So why has NATS misinformed the Mayor in this way?.

NATS are indeed to re-consult on the other flight paths from airports in the South East which were included in the original TCN document, as we have written before, but not the LCA flight path which was implemented last year, and which has caused no end of disturbance and upset to thousands of East London households.

So despite Boris's pledge, we haven't seen any evidence in the response to confirm that the CAA have been asked to carry out a public review rather than a private one, and we now also see the Mayor being misled into believing that the very flight path which has been so controversial is to be reconsulted upon - when it is not. 

Why not contact the Mayor and ask him to fulfil the pledge he made to a packed Ilford auditorium at the Mayor's Environmental Question Time? You can email him: mayor@london.gov.uk

Boris gets confused again! A contradiction in terms in East London

How can a Green Enterprise exhibition and conference centre and London City Airport be put in the same article? At first view the idea of an exhibition and conference centre that uses Green materials and promotes positive environmental schemes seems like a fantastic idea that could bring new green enterprises to the East part of London. But building something like this right beside London City Airport which flies in the face of anything Green locally or even Globally is complete madness. Just like allowing the expansion in one of the most densely populated areas in the UK! Firstly with noise levels that regularly exceed 80db how are you to enjoy the environment? Secondly Silvertown and Britannia Village have a constant stench of Jet fuel that is left from standing and over flying aircraft from London City Airport.

We think that Boris Johnson has either been duped by Sir Robin Wales or more than likely he has just no idea what living or working beside London City Airport is really like.

You can read an article about the proposals Here in the East London Advertiser.

"PLANS have been revealed today for a £30 million 'Green Enterprise' exhibition and conference centre in East London.

The 'iconic' three-storey pavilion for the Royal Docks, near the ExCeL centre and London City airport, would be a permanent showcase for 'sustainable technologies' for a low carbon 21st century society.

It will be at the heart of a 'Green Enterprise District' being set up across East London to regenerate undeveloped industrial land to attract new investment, in a project announced by London Mayor Boris Johnson and Newham's mayor Sir Robin Wales.

Sir Robin said: "Nowhere else in Britain is undergoing transformation on the scale of East London. There is huge potential for investment and prosperity."

The centre will include a public exhibition, 300-seat auditorium and educational facilities with interactive exhibits, a café and shop.

A consortium is being put together by Siemens engineering and technology group to design and build the 'pavilion' covering nearly 40,000sq ft.

The structure, built with recycled steel and industrial by-product cement, will maximise natural daylight using high performance glazing, photovoltaic panels and energy efficient lighting.

Its design includes 'rainwater harvesting', ground source heat pumps and solar water heating. The centre is expected to be open early in 2012."

The New Coalition & Airport Expansion

Well here we are with a new coalition government and hopefully a new era in UK politics.

We at Fight the Flights are pleased with the decision of the new coalition to halt the new runway at Heathrow airport and that Stanstead and Gatwick have also been stopped.

What we at Fight The Flights want to hear is that Airport expansion at regional airports which (believe it or not London City Airport is graded as?) will also be halted. Remember London City Airport was given permission by Robin Wales's Newham Council to expand up to 120,000 movements per year from 76,000. Also remember that London City Airport is built in one of the most densely populated areas in the UK and only 200 yards from a primary school. It also broke it's section 106 by flying approx 20,000 flights over it's 76,000 approved by the council within a year. So that works then!!

We of course will be lobbying the new government to make assurance's that expansion at London City Airport will be halted and the increase in use of larger, nosier more polluting jets is pulled. We want local boroughs and communities who are negatively affected by London City Airports business to once again live a clean and normal life. We also want to remind them that aviation expansion is the biggest growing factor to the increase of CO2 emission which affects climate change.

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”.

ENDS

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

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

Mayor's Question Time On London City Airport

Mayor answers to London

London City Airport

[Main question]

Question number	0236/2010
Meeting date	27/01/2010

Question by John Biggs

What, if any, work is the GLA, including functional bodies, doing on the environmental impact of London City Airport?

Answer by Boris Johnson

The environmental impacts of London City Airport are clearly an issue of concern for local people, highlighted during my recent public question time in Ilford.

The only environmental impact work I’m aware of that has been undertaken by the GLA and its functional bodies relates to potential noise impacts arising from the proposed expansion of the airport on the LDA’s nearby landholdings.

I am aware that the planning permission relating to the proposed expansion, which Newham determined, and which I have no powers of direction over, has been challenged. I understand Newham are awaiting a decision from the high court as to whether the current permission can proceed.

I support the view that the CAA should consult the residents of east London when undertaking the 12 month review required following the implementation of airspace design changes and the associated changes to flight paths affecting departures from London City airport.

London City Airport

Question by Murad Qureshi

Why did you not see fit to intervene on the expansion of City Airport?

Answer by Boris Johnson

I have no planning powers in respect of the airport’s ambition to expand its operations to 120,000 flights a year. However, after considering the economic and environmental information submitted with the planning application made by the airport to Newham Council in 2007 and clarifying any potential impact of the proposed expansion on the Thames Gateway Bridge, I decided that Newham Council was best placed to determine the application itself.