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.

James Brokenshire MP - Houses of Parliament Written Answers on London City Airport

Written Answers, Daily Hansard, Houses of Parliament.

London City Airport

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of (a) aircraft movements and (b) passengers at London City Airport in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [303849]

7 Dec 2009 : Column 36W

Paul Clark: The Department for Transport's latest published forecasts of aircraft movements and terminal passenger numbers at airports in the UK are presented in "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts", January 2009. This is available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/atf/co2forecasts09/

The Department's latest forecasts of air transport movements are given in table G8, page 141 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts". The central estimate for the number of air transport movements at London City airport in 2015 is 92,000 an increase of 28,000, or 44 per cent., over the 2010 estimate.

The Department's latest forecasts for airport terminal passengers are given in table G3, page 135 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts". The central estimate from the Department's forecasts for the number of passengers using London City airport in 2015 is 3.7 million passengers per annum (mppa), an increase of 1.4 million passengers, or 68 per cent., over the 2010 estimate.

The above estimates only include scheduled passenger services. The Department has not modelled unscheduled business jet charters and air taxis at London City airport. The model currently underestimates scheduled air traffic movements at London City airport. Table 2.4, page 34 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts" provides a comparison of modelled and actual air transport movements. For larger airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick, modelled and actual figures are within a couple of per cent. of each other. Moreover, the forecasts in "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts" fulfil their intended purpose-to inform and monitor long term strategic aviation policy. We currently expect to publish updated aviation forecasts in 2010.

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent representations he has received on aircraft noise at London City Airport. [303850]

Paul Clark: No formal representations have been received on aircraft noise at London City airport. However early next year, the airport will be required to submit a draft strategic noise action plan to the Secretary of State for consideration for formal adoption under the European Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). If the requirements are met, the Secretary of State for Transport will recommend to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the action plan should be adopted. The airport is currently conducting a public consultation on its draft noise action plan. This consultation closes on 15 January 2010.

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the level of noise nuisance arising from aircraft using London City Airport; and what changes in that level have been recorded in the last 10 years. [303852]
Paul Clark: Responsibility for monitoring the noise levels of aircraft operating at London City airport rests with the airport operator. Under local planning agreements with the London borough of Newham, the airport is required to produce noise exposure contours on an annual basis. These are published on the London City airport consultative committee's website.
7 Dec 2009 : Column 37W

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport how many (a) jet and (b) propeller aircraft (i) arrivals and (ii) departures there have been at London City Airport in each of the last 10 years. [303853]

Paul Clark: The following tables show the number of jet and propeller aircraft arriving and departing London City airport from 1999 to 2008: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091207/text/91207w0008.htm

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport whether his Department has had discussions with the London Borough of Newham in connection with proposals to increase aircraft movements at London City Airport. [303854]

Paul Clark: The Department for Transport has not had any such discussions.

The Real Effects Of London City Airport On The Communities

Newham Residents talk at the Oxfam Climate Question Time at City Hall on the 26th of November 2009. Listen to how developments like London City Airport have brought so many negative elements to the local communities.
This is the real story of aviation and airport expansion in East London

Redbridge: Unanimous support for Lib Dem motion against London City Airport Expansion

Tonight we witnessed a borough which takes on board the concerns of their residents and acts upon it. We applaud Redbridge council, the evening was an impressive one.

All parties unanimously supported the Lib Dem motion regarding the expansion of London City Airport and a lack of consultation from Newham Council.

Many notable comments were made by all of the parties, and they showed great knowledge and insight into the negative issues of London City Airport flights, expansion and flight paths on residents and the environment.

The motion supported stated that Redbridge opposed expansion of London City Airport and associated points which we will comment upon tomorrow. One councillor commented that "the lack of dialogue from Newham was politically insensitive and morally reprehensible"

FTF residents from Redbridge, Havering, Newham, Waltham Forest, Tower Hamlets and Greenwich were present to support the motion and the councillors. John Stewart from HACAN and Cllr Alan Craig of Newham also attended the protest and meeting to show their support

We would like to thank Redbridge Council for the warm and accommodating welcome to FTF and the protestors.

Full story tomorrow.

Redbridge Protest This Thursday

Fight the Flights call- out for a protest on:

Thursday Nov. 19th @ 6.30pm prompt at

London Borough Redbridge Council Chamber, Ilford Town Hall, Ilford High Road

(pedestrianised-3 min walk east out of Ilford Station, from Liverpool Street)

Please come along , bring a friend; pass this on. Meet outside, or at the eastern

entrance opposite Kenneth More Theatre


Redbridge Liberal Democrats have tabled a motion over the expansion of London City Airport.

Neither Redbridge nor Waltham Forest were consulted by Newham,so none of their residents have ever had an opportunity to object to the 50% increase in flights or the current flight path changes pushed through without proper consultation by the CAA!

So, bring a poster, banner, friend and wear red or your t-shirt to help us stop

(London City) Airport expansion and to act on climate change

FTF at Oxfam's Climate Question Time - Newham

At the Newham Oxfam Climate Question Time: Stephen Timms MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was very keen on aviation growth....whilst making it clear that us mere mortals have so many ways in which we can reduce our
emissions! Strangely for a Financial Secretary to the Treasury , there was NO mention of what BUSINESS could do to help with climate change, the local environment and the required reduction in emissions: that is until that issue was raised in relation to aviation by a member of the audience.

Timms is very keen on allowing the rich (the richly subsidised and pocketing aviation industry in particular) to trade in carbon credits - the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This is the answer to all the climate issues of the world, well that's what he believes. We'd like him to review that after what he heard at Wednesday's meeting.

Apparently the tax that will be collected from the scheme would be of great benefit when government throw a brown paper bag of notes over to areas such as flooded Bangladesh, after the damage from climate change has already occurred of course. Timms referred this to 'environmental mitigation' . Mitigation in Newham - it's put into policy and planning documents but rarely put into practice for the benefit of it's residents.

Personally, we suspect this money wouldn't be any more use at that point, in terms of 'mitigation', than a few sandbags being handed out once everything has already been lost and washed away. It was pointed out that this was simply allowing the rich to pay to pollute the poor, that it was selfish and an irresponsible policy unless the government was willing to halt growing emissions, from the aviation industry for example. Otherwise surely it was a case of continuing to allow the annual 3,000 premature deaths in London and the floods in Bangladesh to further deteriorate, and to throw money at those groups after they suffer, and lives are lost, whilst government and big businesses continued 'business as usual' wasn't it? This surely at the very least is nothing more than patronising, devalues the worth of individuals, and once again values money above all other factors?

Public transport, poverty and car use in Newham was also raised. There's a lot of problems with transport and inequalities in Newham. Timms displaying just how out of touch he is with residents in his borough, claimed that there had been huge transport improvements: DLR (paid for by taxpayers) and Eurostar..and that buses had improved. DLR and Eurostar are a luxury to residents in one of the most socially deprived boroughs in London.

A lady on the bus told us that she couldn't afford/nor was it practical to travel by tube/DLR to her job in EC1.She spends almost 4 hours a day travelling into the city for her minimum wage. It takes so long as the bus often simply doesn't turn up so she has to allow extra time, lots of extra time. Her 4 children and husband are used to her being out 12 hours a day, but are not happy about it and worry about her safety. We've heard from more than one MP say they wouldn't use public transport/or go out alone in the evening because of concern for their personal safety. Unfortunately most residents don't have employers (yes, us the taxpayers) who will pay for them to stay over in hotels, or perhaps pay for them to travel by taxis so they don't have to face those scary, and long commutes over short distances to and from work. It's no wonder so many people struggle to run cars to get around, but they are the very people who government appear to be looking to for reducing emissions whilst big business carries on increasing theirs. These issues clearly all provide barriers to employment, and a way out of poverty and pollution in Newham, but they are certainly not ones that the local politicians seem to grasp.

But don't worry, residents might not be able to afford to get to work in a time efficient way, or have the time to travel to work for 4 hours a day because of family responsibilities...BUT there are more flights for the rich, who don't live in Newham, don't contribute to Newham but whom DO use London City Airport and whom leave rather a lot of pollution behind for the less privileged to breathe.

It was interesting that Timms started his initial answer to all these points that 'the answer is not to shut London City Airport' (trebles all round for that statement in the airport hospitality room for Timms next time he visits). Strangely the audience member who posed the questions had not even made such a suggestion that the airport should close, but instead highlighted the importance of 'balanced decisions, taking all issues into account, but certainly not allowing the airport to expand''. .

But Timms is banking on biofuels for aviation (he failed to mention about the mass de-forestation and food crops declining as a result of the current poorly planned quest for unsustainable biofuels though). Unfortunately you couldn't help but feel that banking might be the operative word, yes governments banking that money all the way to the bank, whilst further damaging our environment, communities and seeing premature deaths continue to rise in London. In fact Newham even knows a bit about biofuels as it's also approved a more than controversial biofuel plant which is alleged will pour yet more harmful emissions and asthma inducing pollutants into the already over polluted air in East London.

Timms, although we are sure he is an exceptionally personable individual is sorely misguided and wrong. He simply misses the issues that are right beneath his nose in his own constituency, let alone globally. Perhaps this was apparent in his inability to answer the questions that were put to him.

Thanks to Oxfam for their great work in encouraging debate in communities and bringing the issues to a local level and also to the two NGO panel members invited by Oxfam: Sabino Miranda of the Climate Change Youth Development Trust and Monjural from the European Action Group on Climate Change in Bangladesh. These groups and individuals are carrying out such valuable grass roots work, building communities and building understanding.

Protestors At LCY Send A Clear Message

Left: Photo courtesy of Mike Russell.

Protestors from Plane Stupid and Fight the Flights sent a clear message to London City Airport today: to stop polluting the air, damaging the environment and making the poorest people pay for the rich.

Whilst LCY and BA celebrated the introduction of a ludricously polluting flight to New York each day, it was highlighted that those 32 people in the A318 are the same number of people who will die in London from air pollution in the time it takes for the return journey.

Protestors laid down three doll corpses with posters highlighting the number of premature deaths in London each year from air pollution.

Aviation fuel has a number of additives which are harmful to human life. Benzene is one, and is connected with childhood leukeamia. Pollution from London City Airport is estimated to travel as far as 20 miles downwind of the runway affecting some of the most densely populated residential areas in the UK. PM10s are small particulate matter which are present in the air from emissions and these are also harmful to human health, and are linked to a variety of diseases, including asthma. Newham has the highest mortality rates in under 30's with asthma in the whole of the country. Residents in Beckton have expressed their concern at what they state are the high level of incidents of childhood leukeamia in their communities.

We're sure that the 32 passengers on the A318 today didn't spend a moment thinking about how their choice to fly in a disproportionately polluting aircraft would affect the children at Drew Road Primary School, or indeed any of the schools beneath the low level flight path, nor some of the poorest and most socially deprived communities in the country. But it's about time they did.

British Airways is very good at spinning environmental greenwash and rhetoric, but in reality it appears that it is not worth the paper it is written on and todays launch is no better evidence of that.

Perhaps British Airways should speak to a few of the residents beneath their flight path in East London that are forced to use ventolin each day as a result of poor air quality and with awareness that the air above London City Airport is already exceeding EU recommended levels by 50%. It is quite shameful.

British Airways & London City Airport Launch A318 NY Service

Whilst British Airways & London City Airport celebrate the benefit of 64 passengers a day flying first class return to New York, consider the following:

TAKE OFF OR TAKE OUT?

BY THE TIME THE A318

32 SEATER AIRCRAFT LANDS

BACK AT £ONDON CITY AIRPORT

32 LONDONERS WILL BE DEAD

FROM DANGEROUS

AIRBOURNE PARTICLES

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.

London City Airport - Increased Pollution in Crash Zone

London City Airport claims in it's own Masterplan that: "The future expansion in aircraft movements, combined with the changes in aircraft and their engines, will increase NOx emissions mainly at the runway and Public Safety Zones [crash zone] away from residential areas"....

Is that why the only residential properties that would be covered by the crash zone which are in Greenwich were not initially consulted (and in fact we don't even know if they have been yet)?

What is even more curious, is that London City Airport were more than well aware of the Gallions Reach Urban Village developments in LB Greenwich, and how much the expansion would enlarge the crash zone over the area. So why do they claim that this increase in harmful NOx emissions would be away from residential areas? They knew that the crash zone would be covering 100s of properties in the area, and 1000s of residents.

So what, you may think? Well NOx is dangerous to humans - it can make you very ill, and in fact can worsen asthma, respiratory diseases and even kill you:

'NO_x react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis it may also aggravate existing heart disease.

NO_x react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and sunlight to form Ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. Millions of Americans live in areas that do not meet the health standards for ozone.

NO_x also readily react with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations.'

So that's all very healthy for the residents in the crash zone in Gallions Reach Urban Village, West Thamesmead, Greenwich then!

So how much do the effects of NOx cost to the National Health System? Well according to Newham PCT health impact study they didn't seem to think there were any bad effects at all, or at the most, they were minimal. Is death minimal? Strange that, because as part of the NHS you would have thought they would have considered the health impact of the expansion of flights, and the cost of the impact on health to the NHS. Not only was the report weak, it failed to mention that Newham had the highest levels of mortality in under 30s in the UK from asthma (and Newham are even working with AsthmaUK on this issue right now, so you can't say they forgot) and failed to flag up any connections between pollution and respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, deaths in London due to air pollution, and the effect of excessive noise on the development on children. As for NOx directly related illnesses, it seems they've forgotten to address those!

Curious indeed! You may be interested to know that Richard Gooding CEO of London City Airport is on the board of the Newham University Hospital Trust(however his photo and reference to him has mysteriously disappeared - we'll be asking the Trust to confirm if he is still a member of the board). He's certainly listed as a stakeholder, as is his friend and fanzine editor Colin Grainger from the biased reporting Newham Recorder. No conflict of interest there then!

Ah Go on! Have a laugh on BAA!

Apparently Colin Matthews of BAA is in a one night show which will possibly be the most hilarious night you've had since the start of the credit crunch. It's always entertaining listening to the money of big business green washing and spinning their way as far away from the truth as possible, we only wish it was Richard Gooding of London City Airport on the podium:

One night only

But spare a thought: whilst you are choking with laughter on the night, residents underneath Heathrow, London City Airport, and all of the collective flight paths, will be choking with pollution.

BA London City Airport First Class Flights In Exchange for First Class Pollution in East London

BA have launched the first look at the new 32-seat aircraft interior cabin layout of the all-business Airbus A318s it will use on transatlantic routes from London City Airport.

"That's our new cabin, that's the London City product that will come on line in the autumn," said Silla Maizey.

Can't say we've noticed that the Civil Aviation Authority have given this jet approval to fly from London City Airport to date - probably because they haven't. Still Silla, an accountant has to try to look on the bright side when the economy is threatening every thread of BA's business.

We note Silla doesn't have to live under a flight path and that her two dogs and cat can breathe air less toxic than a 4 year old has to breathe around Drew Primary School. Lucky her! What is funnier is that Silla is head of BA corporate responsibility. So what do Silla and British Airways say to the children who go to the school which is less then 600 yards from where their polluting planes take off? Or to the highest mortality rates in asthma sufferers under 30 in Newham in the whole of the country? It's all just an inconvenient truth to British Airways no doubt. Or is it as simple as sending the London City Airport Barney the Bear to the class room with a handful of logo'd LCA sweatshirts?

British Airways don't give a stuff about communities affected by their activities, a bit like Richard Gooding of London City Airport and Sir Robin Wales and the Newham elected labour councillors - they do not care that residents are dying premature deaths in London from toxic air pollution, and that children's development is being affected so much so that schools around the airport all have children with above average levels of learning difficulties.

But this plane is for the uber-rich. 32 seats and tickets wont be cheap (unless you are a lucky Newham Councillor who receives free flights from the airport). So who cares about the most socially deprived borough in the country which so far has benefited from just 120 directly employed airport jobs in 20 years of operation of the airport?

As usual BA and LCA are off the mark. Only a few days ago BA cancelled its Dublin route and then admitted it is set to make two years of losses running into several hundred millions of pounds after an unprecedented 20% collapse in passengers travelling in first and business class, the cabins where it makes most of its profit. But of course, apparently they only cancelled the Dublin route due to the crash at the airport and the investigations that continue into the BAE146's that have taken some out for checks. So we'll be expecting to see the British Airways Dublin route re-scheduled as soon as they have all been serviced then, right? We don't think so!

No mention of any cancellations on the London City Airport web of spin, only preferring to announce positive spin. No mention anywhere of the two crashes , route cancellations or Flasher the Angry Swiss Air Pilot.

Even more shocking is the environmental impact that this jet will allegedly have. The Business Travel Research Centre at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom found that the carbon emissions level from first class may be more than double of those of passengers in the economy section.

More harmful pollution over East London and those primary school children just a few minutes walk from the runway - still when there's money to be made - that's nothing to worry about at all in the world of aviation!! It's a small price, especially when it is the state that picks up the bills, and the pieces.

We look forward to seeing how the airport will be spinning this. But maybe its ok - Perhaps Hill And Knowlton are about to help them out seeing as the last few months have been a PR disaster for them.

Newham Challenged on Air Quality Data by FTF Lawyers

Air quality in East London is set to further deteriorate - but the London Borough of Newham see this as nothing more than an inconvenience, so didn't really address it or plan how they will deal with it as they allow their friend Richard Gooding and LCA to expand unsustainably.

It's worth noting to those not familiar with the area that Parker Road is right by the Drew Road Primary School and by the new playground (pictured above) just 200 yards away from the airport terminal and next to residential areas. Camel Road has high density housing as does the whole area alongisde the south side of the terminal. It is rather surprising that the governers and headmistress of the school have not indicated any concern about the effect of the airport expanding on their pupils. Unbelievable in fact that they would not be concerned about the effect of growing noise and air pollution on the children. Wonder why that is?

In a letter to the London Borough of Newham Planning Department FTFs legal representative at Friends of the Earth wrote:

"Further to our recent correspondence we write to raise a further issue in respect of this application, concerning air quality. We refer to the table 3.10 at 3-30 of the supplementary addendum to the ETS, which indicates that the area of Camel Road/Parker Street (R2) is already expected to breach the NO2 limit value of 40 micrograms per litre set under the EU’s Council directive 96/62/EC, transposed by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007. In addition, it is projected that Camel Road/Hartmann Road (R1) will also breach the limit if the airport is expanded."

You will be aware that regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations prescribes limit values for various pollutants. NO2 is a Group A pollutant and it is apparent from Table 3.10 of the Addendum to the ES that the limit value will be breached in 2010. In relation to R1 that breach is directly caused by the contributions from the application scheme, and in relation to R2 the increase of the exceedance is made significantly greater by the same contribution.

In these circumstances we do not understand how Table 3.14 of the same document can assert that "The proposed scheme would not contribute to air quality exceedances…" This statement appears to be contradicted by the evidence. We also note that regulation 6(2) states that the limit values "shall be attained by the attainment date…". It would appear to us that the Council would be in breach of this statutory requirement if it were to grant a planning permission which is predicted to have the direct result of breaching the limit value.

Your authority will be well aware of its duties under ss 84 and 85 of the Environment Act 1995 to designate AQMAs and to supplement information in relation to the area in question by reviewing this information. Given that the information provided in the ES indicates that a breach is likely in both Camel Road/ Parker Street and Camel Road/Hartmann Road we are unclear as to the basis on which the local authority intends to approve an application which would deepen an existing breach and make a second breach worse.

Further, the information provided through the Environmental Statement would appear to indicate that your authority should designate both of these locations as being AQMAs and produce action plans to deal with such risk. This is not a matter that appears to have been addressed in the planning officer’s report.

As set out in the air quality guidance in LAQM PG (03), air quality is capable of being a material planning consideration and the impact on ambient air quality is particularly important where the development is proposed within, or adjacent to an AQMA; and where the development or associated traffic is likely to result in predicted levels of air pollutants close to a breach (in this case the development is predicted to lead to a breach- see paragraphs 7.33 to 7.35). The planning officer’s report (paragraphs 8.6.1 to 8.6.7) refers to the mitigation options in the ES but these include matters such as "increasingly stringent legislative controls" which impact on traffic flows and the DLR. These are beyond the control of the airport operator and the local authority and therefore cannot be regarded as mitigation in the strict sense.

We note the commentary at paragraph 3.7.10 of the supplement that the predicted concentrations may be over-predicted. However, the legislation simply requires the existence of a risk of a breach rather than complete certainty. In addition, the aircraft emissions included within the assessment are simply those from the landing and take-off (LTO) cycle. In this regard we would refer you to a recent European Commission study on air quality impacts of non-LTO emissions from aviation. This study, which can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/air_quality_impacts_finalreport.pdf
concludes that Nitrogen Oxide emissions from the non-LTO phase contribute to a 1-2% increase in Nitrogen Dioxide in the vicinity of airports (see table 9 and page 52).

This underlines that the expansion of London City Airport is likely to have an adverse impact on air quality and that your authority is required to determine how this will be addressed before granting the planning application.

______________________________

Isn't it strange how the Newham Planning Department could overlook all those issues? At this rate, Drew Road Primary School children won't be able to run around the block for the effect of pollution, let alone be part of the Olympics. Carry on Newham, allowing the area to be increasingly polluted - and affecting the health and development of children and residents! And all for 120 jobs at London City Airport for Newham residents after 20 years of operation. Real regeneration and benefits for the community - we think NOT.