Government Allows Heathrow to Bring MORE Misery to South and East London

Watch out pro-aviation expansion NIMBYS - it could all be coming to a sky near you!

As if London City Airport is not enough of a blight on the most densely populated area in the country, it seems that the 'government' become ever yet more disingenuous alongside the aviation sector to expand at ANY COST to communities or the environment.

Plans to increase the amount of flights to Heathrow is going to affect homes as far as 30 miles away from the airport. Of course in south and east London this takes no account of the 50% increase in flights from London City Airport, approved by the very ignorant and totalitarian run London Borough of Newham.

You'll be heart warmed to know that this government made NO attempt to highlight this change to the very people who would be most affected - they made no attempt to directly consult with residents beyond West London. It's identical to the LCA consultation fiasco - if you could even call it a 'consultation'. Thankfully John Stewart of HACAN Clearskies has been the key individual to highlight the effect of changes at Heathrow on south and east London - if it was not for his continued significant and committed involvement the communities soon to be affected would still have been kept in the dark by this morally lacking government. You can check the barmy paperwork from the Department for Transport on 'Adding Capacity' at Heathrow HERE.

The Times article (which we recommend you read) stated: Aircraft will take different routes from the holding stacks to the new turning points, meaning there will be winners and losers in terms of noise.

Residents in many parts of inner London will no longer have aircraft passing within earshot, but millions of people in outer London and the Home Counties will either be exposed to aircraft noise for the first time or find many more aircraft flying directly overhead. The main losers will be those living close to the new turning points, which will be over Reading to the west and Dartford and Woolwich to the east.

Noise levels will also increase in Watford, Amersham, Camberley, High Wycombe, Barking, Rainham, Ilford, Leytonstone, Walthamstow, Barnet, Carshalton and Beckenham. People in Hampstead, Highgate, Islington, Hackney, Mile End, Stratford, Harrow, Ruislip and Henley will no longer hear any Heathrow-bound air traffic.

The Government did not make clear in its consultation document on Heathrow expansion, published in November 2007, that so many people would experience a significant change in aircraft noise.

Looks like Boris Johnson, Mayor of London (Objector of the Heathrow 3rd runway, but supporter of London City Airport expansion) is going to be a winner - with Heathrow aircraft being removed from the skies of his residential area - lucky him!

The Great Web Of Deception

There are a lot of things about this application that have been uncovered during the last 9 months or so. Most of all it is the level of deception that the community have been fed in the absence of real facts, and accurate information that has been the most concerning.

1. Residents are still being told - ''noise mitigation will be offered to all households in the noise contours to deal with the increased noise levels".

This is a really good one to get rid of objecting residents, who haven't seen or had time to read the details of the noise mitigation programme, and whose main concern are the noise levels.

There's two problems with this: firstly the noise contours are based on estimates, secondly any home built of given planning permission after 1997 is not eligible for assistance to sound insulation. You may be offered motorised ventilation simply because opening your windows will be unbearable with the level of noise from jets - but this will not reduce the noise experienced from 50% more planes at intervals of 90seconds!

2. Noise contours - residents have been led to believe that the current noise contours are only estimated for the past year.

Estimated noise contours are a real money saver for London City Airport (think of all those properties which may be eligible for noise mitigation for the past 7 years but haven't been identified as 'eligible'!)and rather helpful when you want to get an application through to expand to a major airport, in the middle of a residential area when the noise levels really matter.

As you will know if you read this blog they have been estimated for over 6 years. Why? Because LCA and Newham don't care and appear to have had some sort of amnesia with regards to the Section 106 requirements since the document was written. But don't worry, a nice, new shiny section 106 with a 50% increase in flights will make everything much, much better, so we are told!

3. Employment Figures - the great myth

Jobs, jobs, jobs - a great tool to try and bury the outweighing negatives to any community! After all who would dare stand up and say no to more 'estimated' jobs? Even if they are just words in the quest to get approval to make loadsamoney, even if it does mean an additional 46,000 people will have to live in sealed up homes, children's development will be affected, and cardiovascular conditions continue to soar in Newham and Greenwich in the areas most affected by the noise levels? Stephen Timm's is right behind on the job issue, shame his equivalent in health isn't right behind the people on the health impacts! Still the price put on the head of a resident, appears to be far less value than that of business - check out the PSZ guidance to see this in practice! But we are sure with Newham's excellent track record in enforcement they will of course follow up and independently check the validity of such job growth claims!!

The airport never, ever quotes that it directly employs just over 400 people. Instead it likes to think it can isolate other job growth in the area and take all the credit for it themselves.

So just over 400 jobs soon become 2000 jobs 'created' but they consistently omit in identifying the distinction between the two categories. They could give lessons on how to purposely mislead the reader - and we thought it was all ''open and honest''! When members of the LCACC also start to express their unhappiness with the figures and projections of job growth, well that says everything.

Itsy, bitsy, spider....