Press Release: Mayor Boris Johnson To Review Support for London City Airport Expansion

At yesterdays London Assembly Mayors' Question Time (1) the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson stated that 'in retrospect he realises that his decision to support the flight expansion at London City Airport  needs reviewing'. He went on to say he felt very anxious about the impact of extra flights over London and that the 'consequences of the expansion had been unexpected and we need to look at the impact of aviation over huge areas of East London'. The Mayor also indicated that he had written to the Civil Aviation Authority expressing his concern and requesting further information over the near collision (2) between a Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Cessna in July 2009.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights welcomed the news stating "We have been expressing our concerns about the impact of the expansion of London City Airport for over 2 years to the Mayor. We felt that the Mayor had been ill advised but it is now clear that he is acknowledging the full impact of extra flights over London, particularly over East London.What is important now is to see what action the Mayor takes and we'd certainly welcome the 'fresh thinking on aviation expansion' which the Mayor referred to".

The Mayor was also asked regarding the pledge(3) he made at the Ilford Environmental Question Time in early 2009, to support a call for a public review (4) of the London City Airport Flight path changes by the Civil Aviation Authority. Griffin said "the Mayor does acknowledge his pledge and response to the FTF question, however he appears to have moved the goalposts by commenting that he would ensure that the review 'would be useful to the public and get the facts into the public domain'. That simply isn't the same as calling for a public review. The CAA are still reviewing the flight path change behind closed doors so the Mayor still has time to put Londoners first and insist that the review is a public one".

End

Notes for Editors:

(1) http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/webcasts

(2) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23875801-jet-in-near-miss-with-heathrow-airline-over-london.do

(3) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/01/boris-backs-call-for-public-review-of.html

(4) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/08/caa-update-on-post-implementation.html

For further information:
FTF spokesperson 07984 300558  

Website: http://www.fighttheflights.com/
Blog: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/


Press Release dated 16/9/10

High Court Ruling throws expansion plans at London City airport into question

Greenpeace press release:

PLANS to expand London City airport were thrown into serious doubt today when a High Court Judge said that the Government’s 2003 aviation policy didn’t fully take into account the effects of climate change.

In a damning ruling handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice today, Lord Justice Carnwath said that the Government’s 2003 Aviation White Paper – the basis for expansion at Heathrow airport and dozens of other airports around the country, including London City – needs to be re-thought in the light of climate change and the UK’s climate change laws. This effectively means that the white paper must now be radically over-hauled so that it is in line with the Climate Change Act 2008.

Climate Campaigner Anna Jones said “Today’s ruling exposes a Government airport expansion policy that is out of control. This country needs a better railway system not new runways. The Government cannot continue to ignore the impact of aviation on climate change. They should shelve all airport expansion plans now; every increase in capacity makes our problems worse.”

The judgement was delivered in response to a Judicial Review brought by Greenpeace and 12 other groups, including local councils, residents groups and other leading green groups. They argued that the consultation process which led to the decision to allow a 3^rd runway at Heathrow to be built was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK’s overall climate change targets.

The Climate Change Committee – an independent watchdog created by the act – recently advised the Government that around half of the planned airport expansion in the UK would have to be scrapped if the Government’s own aviation emissions target is to be met and that therefore it needed to review its 2003 aviation expansion policy.

For more info contact the Greenpeace press office on 0207 865 8255

Redbridge Council Deal Another Blow to Newham Over LCY

Last month it was Waltham Forest Council condemning Newham Council over it's decision to approve a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport without consulting them...now it's Redbridge Council's turn to. It seems that Newham Council won few friends when they inflicted London City Airport aircraft noise on proportionately more in other boroughs than even in their own:

Redbridge Full Council Meeting

Thursday, 19th November, 2009 7.15 p.m.
Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Ilford, Essex, IG1 1DD

12.
To consider the following Notices of Motion:-
(i) Expansion of London Airport

Motion to be Moved by Councillor Hoskins and Seconded by Councillor Cleaver:

"This Council recognises residents' concern over (a) the expansion of London City Airport, and (b) flight path changes relating to "stacking" for London Heathrow Airport, believes the increased number of flights using these airports - and the associated noise nuisance and environmental impact - is detrimental to Redbridge residents.

Therefore this Council requests that the Chief Executive :

Carries out an immediate investigation into what Redbridge Council knew about the London City expansion and flight path changes, and what action was taken on the Council's behalf.

Writes to the Mayor of Newham, condemning the inadequate consultation and their decision to allow further expansion of London City Airport, stressing the negative impact this decision has had on residents of Redbridge.

Writes to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and NATS to ask what action they took to consult residents of Redbridge on the changes to flight paths and London City Airport expansion.

Asks the EU commissioner to investigate the expansion of London City Airport and the impact it has on residents of Redbridge and East London.

Investigates the option of Redbridge Council launching its own legal action against Newham Council over its inadequate consultation on the expansion of London City Airport.

This Council requests that the Chief Executive reports his findings back to councillors at the earliest possible opportunity."

How many flights go from London City Airport? Asks LCA

If you know the answer, please do let London City Airport know, as we've been reliably informed that one of their staff appears to be in the dark about this and carried out a web search to see if they could find the answer. Oh and guess where they ended up!! FTF just never seems to be off their radar. That caused some considerable amount of amusement in team FTF.

Perhaps LB Newham have just asked LCA and Bickerdike Allen (their consultants) if they operated within the planning limits for the past year in terms of flights operated on the basis of noise factored movements. Bearing in mind the lack of constant and reliable data collection at LCA in the past, the figures they perhaps could find in such a search might be more reliable than their own claims!

Notting Hill Housing Trust - Blinkered to Airport Noise Effect On Residents?

It seems they plan to move residents into London City Airports 63db Noise Contour Zone

We have only just recently discovered that the office block at the Royal Albert Basin, The IVAX building, by the river Thames, and 13 acres of land, has been acquired by Notting Hill Housing Trust.

Now, either NHHT has been completely naive into purchasing this land with a view to make it a residential led, mixed use development, or they have decided that social housing does not deserve to be in an environment which ensures some degree of quality of life.

The area, and the IVAX building is right by the side of the very low approach to the runway, approximately less than 500 yards away. It has the 'benefit' of also being in a ESTIMATED 63db noise contour area...and according to our experts mapping of the crash zone using the correct methodology for the future appears to be at threat from the 'Crash Zone'. We are just wondering how residents will use all this 'well designed public space' if they risk having their eardrums burst with 120,000 jets flying over each year: one every 90 seconds with noise levels so high you won't be able to hear each other speak! What a barmy idea to house yet more people in the property blighted area.

To say we are speechless that NHHT would even consider housing residents in an area which already has such excessive noise levels from jets, is an understatement. Let's hope that they make prospective social housing purchasers, and tenants well aware of the noise levels and of the crash zone before they get them to sign on the dotted line. Property blight has already hit all the homes in the area and has left neighbouring new blocks empty for years as a result of the detrimental effect of the airports activities.

Funnily enough Fred Nugent of Newham Council makes no reference to the 50% increase in flights and noise levels on the blighted site and how that will effect residents negatively! How surprising!

________________________

Notting Hill moves East

Posted Date: 04/07/2008 - Housing Net.Co.UK

Notting Hill Housing has exchanged contracts on Ivax Quays, a large site in the Newham area of Thames Gateway region.Notting Hill has proposed developing the 13 acre waterside site into "Great Eastern Quays": a residential led, mixed use development in line with the Albert Basin Development Framework Plan.The development will play a significant role in the regeneration of the area, combining private sale, shared ownership and rented accommodation along with over 7,000 square metres of commercial space and almost 6,000 square metres of well designed public space.2,000 new homes each year by 2010......read on

"Increase movements each year [at LCA] until something bad happens" - Pprune

FTFs pilot friend has alerted us to a thread on Pprune - the Professional pilots rumour network:

"City airport by its pure existence is a pain in the a**e.lack of stands, ancient procedures and c**p flow..... but lets increase the movements each year until something bad happens".

Quote from Pprune member who started thread on Thames Radar/London City Airport Controllers: 04/11/08

That just about sums up how most resident objectors feel across the boroughs of east and south east London, Kent and Essex.

Then follows a comment from a 27 year old 'not in my backyard' pro aviation, at any cost 'individual' who recommends some "tridents" and "VC10s down the approach" to put residents concerns and issues with noise, and breaches of the section 106 into perspective. He hates his neighbours apparently. We suspect the feeling might be mutual between him and his neighbours. (pictured above VC10)

Another individual claims 'the' objector lives in the 'penthouse flat, that was built after the airport' - apparently you are the only one objecting! Whoever is the person in the penthouse flat? However they've linked that comment to the Newham Recorder so at least their keeping in tradition with the paper in printing inaccurate biased statements.

Prune member must know something we don't, but he also doesn't know a lot of things that we do...such as how many objectors have lived in the area for 3 generations or more and far outdate the airports short life. Or is he making the point that residents have no right in a democracy to object if they moved to the area in the past 20 years despite the airport promising to be nothing other than a stolport for small business aircraft?He happened to forget to quote that there were over 1000 objection letters and almost 1000 signatures against expansion. Hmm there must be more penthouse flats in east and south east London than we thought!

Ignorance is bliss for some. Could they possibly dig deeper holes for themselves?

Are you getting a good nights sleep?

FTF has growing concerns for the affect of LCA's 'living in cuckoo land dream state' of flight expansion and it's effects on East and South East London. What LCA want is to make the airport a major one. A major airport smack in the middle of high density housing and high rise office blocks will unnecessary increase health and safety risks, and misery on the surrounding areas. So we should take heed by what has and is happening to other airports around the country.

East Midlands Airport currently has around 80 flights per night (2300-0700) weekdays with rather fewer on Saturday and Sunday nights, not all of them freight and mail. It's pure hell for the residents in the area and whom you would expect it was a basic right to get a good night's sleep.

We can't rule out, nor wouldn't put it pass LCA to try to extend their flight operation times in the future, in fact if they ever got to their dream of 176,000 flights a year - we'd be confident in placing a bet that the next stage for them after that would be to submit a 'quiet application' to LB Newham, who would then in turn do their very best not to inform more than about 10% of residents affected.

Speak up against LCA expansion, but also spare a thought for those residents around East Midlands Airport and sign their petitition asking for a curb on night flights - something which is clearly not an unreasonable request so that they can all get a peaceful nights sleep. Good sleep is essential for the healthy development of babies and children and for healthy adults - our communities are valuable.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/peacefulnight/

One (well rather more) Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

Residents have been reporting back to us for some time the high amount of planes that have aborted landings at London City Airport.

Residents notice these as the sound of a jet at low level less than a mile from the end of the runway firing back up into a climb at a steep angle is incredibly noisy over residential areas. They also worry that these events of firing off mean that more of those harmful emissions to humans are spurted over their homes.

We are also wondering if when there are aborted landings whether these count as one noise factored movement or two- even though the plane has to re-circle and attempt to land for the second time?? So in effect, residents experience such events as two movements. But the murky world of aviation statistic manipulation is bound to count it as one we suspect!

We don't have aborted landing figures from Heathrow but we suspect that the amount of landings aborted at LCA are relatively much higher due to the nature of the landings required and the exposed position to adverse weather conditions - another reason to suspect their ability to manage any more flights than they already have.

There might not be a consultation - but there is London City Airport's Consultative Committee

Fight the Flights has been busy of late, as you would imagine.

Although we knew about, and have been in contact with LCACC, we have only just noticed that the meetings they hold on a quarterly basis ARE OPEN TO THE PRESS AND PUBLIC. It's unfortunate that we missed Tuesday's meeting due to rather more pressing Fight the Flights business but you can read the minutes of all the meetings, and see when the next is to be held at:

http://www.lcacc.org/committee/minutes.html

If you are interested in attending the next meeting why not drop us a line?