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

Scratching the Surface of Air Quality At London City Airport

The cat naughtily scratched the wall last night, missing his scratchpost by a few inches. He got a good telling off today. Sometimes rules just have to be followed and if you don't follow them, well you have to have the courage of your convictions and face the music.

However our friends at London City Airport seem incapable of facing the music without yet more spin, smoke and mirrors.

A few months ago the GMB workers union submitted a formal complaint to the Health and Safety Executive about the air quality in the airport terminal. This, allegedly was after many attempts by the union to see the air quality measurements from the airport. LCY apparently, and perhaps predictably declined to share the data according to the GMB:

London City Airport did hire monitoring equipment, which they located under air conditioning vents and operated themselves. The GMB has been denied access to the results and has serious doubts about this ‘in house’ monitoring and the lack of any independent control. As such any results from this exercise must be considered flawed.

Stephanie Attwood., GMB Organiser said, “GMB members working in the arrivals area report that the fumes get so bad that they experience signs of poisoning exposure such as: dry mouth, nose and throat, sore, itchy eyes, headaches and breathing difficulties. GMB Members working in this area have to vacate the room on a daily basis in order to escape having to breathe in the toxic air. Members of the travelling public who land at London City Airport have to use this area too as will competitors and visitors to the Olympics.

GMB is amazed at London City Airport’s refusal to agree to full independent monitoring to this potentially dangerous situation. If they had nothing to hide they would have done exactly that to reassure the travelling public. But no, instead they have botched up an in-house, off the cuff stab at monitoring that no one is allowed to the see the result of.

The reality of the situation is that London City Airport has chosen to sacrifice the health of their passengers and staff in order to line their pockets with high levels of profit. It is time for the airport to get real and clean up the situation finally putting their passengers’ and staff’s health first.”

Unfortunately FTF were not 'amazed' at all. After 8 years of the airport failing to carry out reliable noise and air readings, (all the readings in the expansion application were based on ESTIMATES because they had no data that they could use for the past 8 years!) it was not a surprise at all.

The HSE to our knowledge have yet to publish the report from their investigation, but you can't help but wonder why in that case, London City Airport has now decided to PAY Green Air Monitoring to come up with some data for them. No data is publicly available so far, but a certificate is, how wonderful! At least the staff member and passengers can perhaps check that out as their passing through, if it is displayed. Whether it gives them reassurance, or gets rid of the symptoms that the GMB describes is another story. Particularly if they knew what was outside the walls.

The data, apparently has given the airport a clean bill of health...but the 'press release' fails to mention the Health and Safety Executive report, or investigation which we assume to be ongoing. We all know that if HSE also find LCY having 'Green Air' inside the terminal, the spokesperson will suddenly be named, and the Newham Recorder will go into overdrive to report it. Incidently the Newham Recorder is going gung ho to report on the LCY paid consultants Green Air report this week. Just funny how the Newham Recorder FAILED to pick up on the story when the GMB press released it back in June. So keeping out the negatives is still priority there then!

Profits before people reign in East London, and it's quite clear where LCY's priorities lay.

Worse still is if we look beyond the walls of the airport terminal, that is where there is hard evidence that air quality is dangerous and in breach of EU regulations. We've written about that before and you can read it all here. But in addition don't forget the paid LCY consultant Dr Maggs. He seemed to think it was fine that flight expansion would push the air pollution ever further over the EU recommended levels. Bet he doesn't live in East London.

Amazing what you can buy today! Sadly, it's just a scratch at the surface of the issue of toxic air linked to London City Airport.

Shenanigans in the Council Chambers Ch1

As we predicted would happen there was some excellent entertainment at the LB Newham council chambers last Wednesday:

The outcome of the 'additional' meeting for London City Airports planning application was as expected: it was approved by the 4 councillors who voted (the rest couldn't vote as they either had a conflict of interest or have been receiving 'gifts'). The four were:

Councillor Riaz Ahmed Mirza
Councillor Lakmini Shah
Councillor Amarjit Singh
Councillor Mary Skyers
Councillor Maureen Jones

Cllr Maureen Jones abstained from voting - giving no particular reason for doing so apart from she was not going to vote, but was going to view proceedings.

The section 106 is still to be completed and therefore a formal written grant of approval is still to take place.

However Wednesday nights 'show' at the Newham Council Chambers was particularly impressive:

A resident, who was down to speak as an objector stood up at speakers time, and raised the issue that the Chair, Cllr Amarjit Singh had been delivering labour election leaflets, (and campaigning door to door), which referred to LCY in the Royal Docks just a few months ago - a clear conflict of interest.

The resident presented the leaflet, which showed a picture of the chair out canvassing alongside the article on London City Airport. The Chamber were rather taken aback - the council's Deputy Head of Legal Services Jeremy Appleson asked to see the leaflet, and then promptly asked all the general public, and the press to leave the chamber as they wished to discuss the matter in private.

Fifteen minutes later the public and press were called back in - and the chair read out Jeremy's written statement concluding that there was no conflict of interest (of course!). The resident asked for the meeting to be deferred so he could consult with a solicitor on the issue. The Head of Planning, John Fannon (nice man but disingenous in his role) asked the councils solicitor. He advised they were under no obligation to do so. So all fair and real democracy in Newham! It was very apparent that nothing was going to get in the way of this approval. Even a BAE146 using the roof of Newham Town Hall as a landing strip would not have stood in the way that night. However, the atmosphere in the chamber had plummetted after the events and the wind had been visibly removed from Newham Council, and London city airport's representatives sails.

The resident then went on to give his speech, and read out a list conflicts of interest between LCY, Newham, Newham Homes, Newham University Hospital and Richard Gooding, and the successive failures to apply the section 106.

Newham councils' failure to declare that they were shareholders in the companies which own London City Airport was one of them. He ended on: ''Newham Council is, by agreeing expansion, was agreeing to 'environmental genocide'. Powerful words. This was followed by two further excellent objection speeches by local residents. Newham really could learn a thing or two from residents, if they ever listened.

The airport - despite having registered around 6 'experts' to speak - when asked to speak, only one simply said that they felt Newham had carried out 'a very through examination' and that there ''was nothing more'' they could add. After the contents of those residents speeches? Well quite.

It appears that the legal advisors may have advised them not to speak at that point. And no cheers from them when the votes were cast either - what dampened their spirits? Did the curling lips just get stuck on one or two of their faces?

Bureau Veritas was there representing the council, it seemed as if their independence has made way to producing simply what their client demands. Their report was a complete whitewash, and their findings are, to say the least, questionable. The weasel words 'negligable' and 'minimal impact' when discussing current and future breaches of air and noise pollution were consistently used - sorry Max from BV we are sure you're a nice guy, but it's all disingenuous. The Faber Maunsell report commissioned by the LDA used by Newham for justification, is another whitewash of weasel words, (we'll be commenting on that in more detail on here soon). It was appallingly biased towards the airport (perhaps because they kept meeting with the airport whilst writing it!).

FTF are now considering their options, but rest assured of one thing: FTF are here to stay!

To be continued..............