Greenwich Council IGNORE London City Airport Blight on Residents

Just over a week ago FTF approached 15 elected officials in the London Borough of Greenwich by email, asking them if they had individually responded to the London City Airport Draft Noise Action Plan (DNAP). The individuals were chosen on the basis that their ward is either beneath the London City Airport flight path, or is a ward in which we have received complaints from residents regarding noise and pollution from LCY aircraft.

Out of 15 elected officials contacted, only one responded. The individual who did respond, to their credit was honest and declared that they had not been made aware of the DNAP and had therefore not responded, and apologised. However here is the list of elected officials who are paid to represent your best interests in the borough of Greenwich whom have failed to respond. FTF can only assume that they have made no effort at all to ensure that residents in Greenwich affected by LCY are taken account of and their best interests promoted in the response to the DNAP. Each ward listed beneath is a link to the individuals profiles.

peter.brooks@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward: In noise contour & crash zone

peter.kotz@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward: In noise contour & crash zone

jackie.smith@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward : In noise contour & crash zone

chris.roberts@greenwich.gov.uk: Peninsula

mary.mills@greenwich.gov.uk, Peninsula

dick.quibell@greenwich.gov.uk, Peninsula

clive.mardner@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Wood

steve.offord@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Wood

jagir.sekhon@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Ward

harpinder.singh@greenwich.gov.uk, Woolwich Common

rajwant.sidhu@greenwich.gov.uk, Woolwich Common

beverley.jones@greenwich.gov.uk Woolwich Common

len.duvall@london.gov.uk, GLA member for Greenwich & Lewisham

You cannot help but ask what these individuals are paid to do if they are not representing you on such important issues as responding to the DNAP and familiarising themselves with the effects on their residents of increased aircraft and jets from LCY? It's something worth considering when you get to the ballot box in a few months time.

Out of courtesy FTF have emailed Andrew Stern in the Greenwich Council Communications department with this item, asking him for his comment. We await his response.

Original email sent to the above elected officials

Saturday, 16 January, 2010, 13:44
Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you as Chair of Fight the Flights, the community group who campaigns against the expansion of London City Airport. You may be aware that last week the High Court gave our group permission for a legal challenge against the London Borough of Newhams approval of a 50% expansion of flights at London City Airport (from 76,000 flights up to 120,000) to a judicial review. The press release may be seen here: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/01/high-court-gives-fight-flights-green_5918.html

This correspondance however is requesting for information from you in regard to your response to London City Airports Noise Action Plan, (as required by the European Noise Directive 2002).

Please see the attached formal response from Fight the Flights to the London City Airport (LCY) Draft Noise Action Plan (DNAP). You have been sent this email as you either represent residents in wards in Greenwich that are affected and/or that FTF has received complaints from residents in your ward regarding LCY flight noise.

I understand that most of you would have been consulted as stakeholders and that you would have by now have submitted your own responses as the deadline of Friday 15 January has now passed.

The opportunity to respond to the DNAP was particularly important for Greenwich due to its UDP stating that 'Greenwich is sensitive to overflying by all types of air traffic'. Coupled with this, the vast, high density regeneration housing projects in West Thamesmead and beyond being covered by an ever expanding noise contour (encouraged by Greenwich Councils support of flight growth at LCY), the importance of Greenwich stakeholders and representatives having responded cannot be underestimated. The effects of LCY flights are not only isolated to Thamesmead Moorings ward but are felt in other wards throughout the borough.

Please could you indicated whether you have responded to the NAP consultation as an individual, or as part of a group?

We are intending to produce an article indicating who responded to the DNAPs consultation in the boroughs most affected by London City Airport operations and therefore we would appreciate your response. Greenwich is not the only borough who is being approached in this way.

If we do not receive a response then we will assume that no representation was made to the NAP by yourself. If you have responded then we would greatly appreciate a copy of your response in your reply.

We thank you for taking the time to read this email, and look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



Fight The Flights - "Fighting against the lies, fighting for the truth".

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..............

Aviation Gifts To Local Councillors - That's the way to do it!!

Times are hard.....

Cllr Ayesha Chowdhury
24/06/2008 - Visit to Dublin Airport (travel and refreshments): Name of donor; London City Airport Consultative Group
Cllr Richard Crawford
27/05/2008 - Goody Bag With Book And 2 Tickets To Car Show At Excel; Name of Donor: London City Airport;

Cllr Patricia Holland - Newham Planning Board
27/05/2008 - Complimentary Gift Bag; Name of Donor: Event sponsored by various airlines to commemorate the completion of new aircraft stands at City Airport, Royal Docks, E16
24/06/2008 - Visit to Dublin Airport (travel and refreshments): Name of donor; London City Airport Consultative Committee.
Cllr Ron Manley - Chair of Newham Planning Board
27/05/2008 - Complimentary Gift Bag; Name of Donor: Event sponsored by various airlines to commemorate the completion of new aircraft stands at City Airport, Royal Docks, E16 LCA Consultative Committee
Cllr Paul Schafer
27/05/2008 - Complimentary Gift Bag; Name of Donor: Event sponsored by various airlines to commemorate the completion of new aircraft stands at City Airport, Royal Docks, E16
Sir Robin Wales
12/09/2006 - Richard Gooding 40th Anniversary (Aviation Industry); Name of donor: Richard Gooding Yacht (Richard Gooding, CEO of London City Airport)
19/09/2007 - Hospitality received drinks and dinner; Name of donor: Newham Homes Board (Richard Gooding is Chair of Newham homes, board members include: Cllr Shafer, Cllr Manley who also just happened to get some freebies from LCACC! ).

Councillor's Manley, Holland and Schafer need to correct their entries, Cllr Crawford states the goody bag was from LCA, whilst they claim 'various airlines', which is it?? They should also complain about the missing items from their goody bags: book and 2 tickets to Excel, or did Cllr Crawford receive a different type of goody bag? You can only wonder at what freebies do in the world of local politics, they clearly affect the accurate recollection of contents and donors!

Newham Council/LCA - The Section 106 And The Shame of It All

Fight the Flights is waiting for a response from Newham Council with regard to London City Airport failing to follow the Section 106 Agreement with regard to providing accurate and actual noise data for the past 7 years. As you will recall, London City Airport have failed in monitoring the actual noise levels for all those years and it is those levels which should also be used for noise contour maps and for the classification of aircraft to enable the correct amount of noise factored movements to take place. This is why no actual data is submitted with the application to expand - only estimates.

Newham Council is responsible for making sure that the Section 106 Agreement is adhered to, and clearly in 7 years they have not based on our current knowledge. How long can it take to resolve an issue with noise monitoring......in Newham...more than 7 years - that has to be a record and a real bonus for London City Airport operations.

However we await Newham's response and will consider the legal position when it is received. We currently feel that Newham Council has been negligent in their position to ensure the health and safety of residents and of maladministration of the section 106 agreement enforcement. But we are getting a good picture of how the LB of Newham behaves towards residents from looking at a variety of planning applications which are all equally as controversial in how: consultations have been carried out and also of the lack of enforcement of conditions and obligations in the Section 106s.....hardly a case of lead by example.

And where we ask are all the local councillors in this....heads buried in the sand? It is actually quite shameful that none of them appear to have raised the lack of noise monitoring at the airport in 7 whole years. Scandalous. It's the residents that voted them in so you'd think the local councillors would be in touch enough to address such important issues which affect the health and safety of their constituents. But still they can also be voted out. However if any of the local councillors can provide us with any information indicating that they have addressed this issue, and have fought for and represented the health and welfare of the residents in the areas affected, we would be more than happy to put a posting on to indicate that.