HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Deluge of complaints on night flights

Campaign group HACAN has been deluged by complaints about night flights following the publication of its report two weeks ago (1). The group has today released a digest of some of the emails they received from people outlining how they are disturbed by night flights (2). The emails came from as far afield as Greenwich and North East London.

HACAN Chair John Stewart said, “We have been inundated by emails and phone calls since we published our report on night flights. Of course not everybody is woken up by night flights, but for those people who are, there is no escape from the noise. For them, night flights gave become a regular nightmare. The first plane coming over at 4.30 am is their alarm clock.”

HACAN is calling on the Government to ban flights before 6am. The current agreement with the airlines runs out in October 2012 (3).

Last month’s report published by HACAN showed that a ban would be likely to save the country money. The report, from the respected Dutch economists CE Delft, found that a ban on night flights before 6am could benefit the national economy by as much as £860 million over a 10 year period. The big savings would be in the monetary costs associated with sleep deprivation. Because of the huge number of people living under the Heathrow night flight path, these savings could be expected to outweigh any loss of income to the aviation industry.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. The report, which looked at the economic impact of a ban on night flights at Heathrow, was launched in the House of Commons at a meeting hosted by Zac Goldsmith MP on 27th February. The report is on the HACAN website: www.hacan.org.uk

2. The digest is attached.

3. Every 5/6 years the Department for Transport enters into an agreement with the airlines using the country’s three ‘designated’ airports – Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick – on the number of flights permitted during the ‘night quota’ period (from 11.30pm – 6am). At present at Heathrow 16 flights are allowed (averaged over the year). They are all landings. There are no scheduled departures, though some are allowed in emergency situations. The first landing aircraft arrives around 4.30 am. In the full night period (11pm – 7am) there are over 80 flights.

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641; 07957385650

Press Release dated 7/2/11

New Research Reveals Sky-High Noise Levels from City Airport

PRESS RELEASE   01.11.10

"the levels of noise being measured across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government”

Research carried out by Fight the Flights (1) in alliance with University College London (UCL) and London 21's Mapping For Change (2) has shown that some residents living under London City Airport flight paths are experiencing noise levels much higher than many people under the Heathrow flight path in West London.  

Local residents were asked to record the noise of planes (3) overhead using hand held noise monitors on loan from UCL. They were also required to record their emotions in response to the noise. Some took photographs of the sources of noise. The residents were from a wide area of east and south east London. Some of them lived under the controversial new flight paths introduced last year by the Civil Aviation Authority (4).

Noise levels measured ranged from 87decibels to 35 decibels. 87 decibels is higher than a plane flying over Kew Gardens in West London and comparable to the noise of a food blender or lawnmower. The emotions described ranged from irritated to relaxing for the scale of the readings taken. Whilst noise data was being collected the volcanic ash cloud also halted all flights over the UK for a few days during April, giving residents a unique chance to compare a quiet no flight period with business as usual. During this time measured sound levels dropped dramatically with the majority of readings falling between 40-50dbs which is comparable to a refrigerator humming. Few noise events measured above 50dbs.

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

Fight the Flights Chair Anne-Marie Griffin commented “This project highlights just what noise levels residents are having to put up with under the flight paths in east and south east London, Fight The Flights plans to carry out a more extensive project in the future with UCL. It should not be forgotten that East London suffers a double whammy, of not only London City Airport Flights, but also Heathrow flights overhead adding to the misery.”

A Redbridge resident commented "This used to be a peaceful quiet area to live. The planes have single handedly changed that, and I am angry that I was not offered any opportunity to comment on either the expansion of London City Airport nor the change of the aircraft flight path, which has so compounded the existing problem of aircraft noise in my area over the last couple of years. Another resident said that '”I have been affected by more aircraft noise than ever before and I was surprised to discover that neither residents of Waltham Forest nor the council had been consulted by Newham Council on London City Airports application for the expansion of flights “. Another stated "the noise due to the increase in jets has increased, the no flight period allowed us the luxury to have windows open without having to close them due to excessive jet noise from London City Airport and Heathrow flights commencing from 4.30am over the borough of Greenwich".

Dr Muki Haklay of UCL commented:  “Mapping for Change was set up to support community action and citizen science. We are pleased to see the community’s use of the noise meters and the methodology of noise mapping that we have developed to record the level of ambient noise and their level of emotional stress that noise can cause. The mapping of the personal experience and the measured level of noise is useful in communicating the influence of urban noise on communities”.

Louise Francis of Mapping for Change stated: “Contrary to recently published online noise maps, which are created using computer-based models, the results collected by the community reflect actual ambient noise readings. The UK Government have been creating noise maps that show the predicted level of environmental noise from industries, airports, and road and rail networks in response to the EU’s environmental noise directive. The current exclusive system used to calculate various noise sources does nothing to look at cumulative ambient noise, that is the noise communities are actually exposed to”.

Fight the Flights is calling on the new coalition government to act on the unacceptable noise levels from current aircraft activities and to halt all further expansion plans at London City Airport and new airport developments in East London. Anne-Marie Griffin stated that "the levels of noise being measured  across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government. It isn't only about residents being disturbed, it's also about the effect on public health and the economic cost of that". Excessive noise levels have been shown to have a detrimental effect on human health and associated illnesses are already over represented in the Borough of Newham.

Fight the Flights is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London on 18,19 November 2010.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. FTF launched a legal challenge, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newhams' decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request/or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF, founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.

2. This snap shot noise mapping project was in alliance with Dr Muki Haklay and Louise Francis of Mapping for Change, a social enterprise of University College London and London 21 Sustainability network. http://www.mappingforchange.org.uk/  Residents took readings for a minimum of 10 days – and up to 21 days of 3 readings, 3 times a day in: Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Greenwich, and Waltham Forest. The Royal Docks map may be seen here: http://www.communitymaps.org.uk/version3/includes/MiniSite.php?minisitename=Royal%20Docks

3. The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.
   

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets, data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999 43  

2000 33

2001 29

2002 25

2003 26

2004 28

2005 36

2006 37

2007 50

2008 58

2009 63 (Jan-Sept)

4. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) signed off a new flight path for London City Airport in Spring 2009. This flight path previously had mostly traveled over the borough of Newham but now almost misses the borough completely as it has been moved further north. It now affects wider areas of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge, some being newly affected. http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1736

5. http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures
   

Fightthefights.com http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

The noise mapping slide and the noise comparison table will both be available on the FTF website in due course, or provided upon request.

For more information:

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 01/11/10

Greenwich Council Given Extra Time To Do Their Job

Greenwich Council have been given until the 22nd of Jan 2010 to get their NAP (Noise Action Plan) reply to London City Airport.

But it seems that the extension does not extend to the rest of the communities surrounding LCY.

It's interesting that this extension arose when "Fight The Flights" asked to see a copy of Greenwich Councils reply over the weekend after the public consultation closed on Friday the 15th of January, see London City Airports NAP page http://www.londoncityairport.com/LandingPage.aspx?Page=noiseactionplan

Greenwich Council seem to have gone into overdrive to save face and actually do something for their borough. They have contacted us and tried to claim that this extension was always there. Funny that no other council or resident knew anything about it and it was only reported after our contact with Council leader Chris Roberts.

So if this is true it seems that there is 1 rule for Greenwich Council and another for the communities. Why is the consultation not extended for everyone?

It's not that we don't want Greenwich Council to reply. It's just that we thought that they could have prepared their reply to the consultation in the 16 week allocated time frame given to everyone. It just implies a lack of commitment from the council to the areas in their borough that are affected by noise pollution from London City Airport.

Mary Honeyball MEP and the European Elections

UPDATE: We have still not received a response to the questions we put to Mary Honeyball.

It is quite surprising that an MEP who is currently canvassing for votes seems to have such little concern in answering residents legitimate concerns at this time.

As we've suggested before - if your MEP does not address your concerns, or answer your emails, then find one that does, and move your vote. Mary's reticence to address the health and pollution concerns which affect broad swathes of east and south London, and the ADDITIONAL 46,000 residents as a result of London City Airport expanding, is quite outstanding.

Why wouldn't Mary have concern for the effect on children's development and an increase in NOx to air levels already exceeding the EU directive limits by 50%?

Because she doesn't care? Because perhaps she is pro-aviation at any cost to peoples lives and health in London? Because she doesn't care about east and south east Londoners? Because she didn't hear that 3000 people had premature deaths due to air pollution in London? Because she is out of touch?

Because all we want is a response to our questions from someone, who we pay the salary for, to represent us in the European Parliament.

What next after us mere residents daring to ask Mary questions...us asking and lobbying for MEP expenses to be fully transparent?

What Makes For A Higher Risk of Bird Strike? Being near water, refuse tips and processing plants

It's a story we've covered before, because we found the airport didn't appear to bother to focus on in it's application to expand and we had some major concerns - Bird Strike.

On the BBC today - (just a shame it didn't do more of an investigative piece), but perhaps that's one for them in the future), they report that: "Airport geese risks played down". Apparently according to Lord Adonis and ministers, the threat of bird strike at a UK airport similar to the recent incident in New York is kept under constant scrutiny".

Who does this highly responsible job fall down on?: the regulators of course, the CAA to ensure airports are safe. We can't say that there's a lot of confidence in any of the regulators anymore, and with good reason too. The CAA are no exception. All policy and guidance but not much bite is the signature of most 'regulators'.

Apparently the amount of birds around Heathrow is not "unusual". Well we'd like to invite Lord Adonis to come along to the areas around London City Airport - yes we might still be regarded as the 'city' over here - but we can assure him that there are plenty of birds, and growing but we suspect that he'd say the amount of birds was not 'unusual'. He's right in many ways. And why shouldn't there be a growing amount of birds? Why? The river Thames is attracting increasing numbers, as does the Beckton sewage works, and the Crossness Sewage works in Bexley, which City Airport planes fly directly over as they follow up the Thames. Of course, this doesn't include the recycling plants and household waste tips. Nor does it take into account the nature reserves and brownfield areas which wildlife thrive in. Personally we love nature, and the natural world so more birds than 50% more planes is fine by us, in fact 50% more heron poles should be the order of the day. They at least don't emit emissions which are harmful to human beings and fill their lungs with fine particulate matters which make us all ill.

FTF wrote an items on high risk strike birds conflicting with more flights from London City Airport: swans, geese, cormorants, herons, seagulls etc. Unsurprisingly there was little mention of the risk of bird strike with more planes over south and east London - in relation to the large amount of water and sites which attract birds. Newham Planning didn't have an idea about it in their usual knowledgeable manner, and considering the CAA were not even consulted on the planning application to increase flights by 50% you can see yet again it was business as usual at London City Airport - trying to bury the negatives and risks yet again. Even beneath the CAA's nose perhaps?

There's been two serious cases of bird strike which come to mind in the past 12 months: the Ryan Air Plane in Italy and the more recent one form La Guardia airport, New York.

The BBC asked "if a similar incident could occur in the UK, Lord Adonis told peers that airports used techniques such as risk assessment and habitat management to "reduce" the risk of a bird strike". Can we hear LCA already penning a proposal to cement the River Thames, Lea, Royal Albert Dock, canals and all green areas over just in case bird strike should actually be taken seriously by planning committees and affect future expansion? Oh whoops, we forgot they have already started thinking using concrete over yet more water, silly us!! In fact why not just concrete over the whole of the south east and turn it into one big runway...? We are of course being sarcastic, but in reality that is what the aviation industry appear to want.

"The government also had sufficient powers to control birds around airports through close co-operation with local councils and landowners, he added". We can tell Lord Adonis that this does not go much beyond London City Airport objecting to new planning applications - the councils over this side of London (and we realise it is a long way from Westminster for some) have no idea about the safeguarding area, and what they should be doing in relation to ensuring the safety of the people under the flight paths. I suspect most have not even heard of the CAA or CAP 772.

So confidence all round in London City Airport, the CAA and your local council? Nope, not from here - Newham didn't even see fit to mention the issue in the consideration of 50% more flights so what hope is there for them to consider such risks now?

Growing Unrest in the Communities

Plane Stupid's action resulting in the closure of Stansted on Monday, agree with it or not, has once again highlighted the strength of feeling and growing movement against aviation expansion. It was interesting to see that some of the media turned it into a class war. No doubt a helping hand came from the aviation industries PR mercenaries. However they know the truth - this isn't anything to do with a class war at all. Anti expansion campaigners come from all walks of life and are spread across the age ranges. This is more than evident in East and South East London in the campaign against the expansion of London City Airport.

What we all know from history, is that every single group who challenges politicians or big business, no matter how valid their challenge is, get attacked: attempts to discredit, intimidate, smear and threaten them by those whom find them the greatest threat is all part of the aviation industries war against growing objectors. What is interesting however is that these attacks are almost none existent by those in the general public - whether they agree with expansion or not. Instead they all tend to emanate from those connected to, or those involved in the aviation industry. It is hardly an appealing characteristic. They are simply a bunch of blinkered NIMBY's.

The saddest feature of this, is that those who feel threatened by anti expansion campaign groups often result to personal tactics - they seem devoid of considering the bigger picture, or the ability to have a debate. The best comments they seem to come up with are that 'you chose to live under a flight path': they don't mention that flight paths have grown, nor that flight paths that were not used are now being used, nor that air traffic has expanded to a point of detrimental effects over 70% of the UK. Nor do they consider that residents often pre-date airports, or the expansions, or that some residents simply do not have a choice in where they live. They ignore the noise, the effects on children's development, the effect on peoples cardiovascular systems, respiratory systems and the effect on climate change. These pro aviation individuals avoid just about every issue that effects our daily lives as a result of the ever intruding feature of roaring jets.

There is indeed a stereotype to the aggressive comments that are often made by the real NIMBYs who support aviation expansion, but just by chance don't happen to live under a flight path, or have the economic mobility to make sure they never have to endure the effects of the activities they support growing. We are sure that whilst airport bosses get chauffeured in from their homes outside of the noise contour zone, and fly out on a private jet it can be guaranteed they don't think for one minute about: the children in Drew Road School, Silvertown who are struggling with concentration and reading, the residents whose asthma has grown progressively worse with the airports growth, or those parents who have lost a child under 30 due to asthma (Newham has the highest mortality rates in England in under 30s) or the contribution to greenhouse gases.

No, they are concentrating on far more important issues such as how to make more money for shareholders like Credit Suisse and General Electric and their own emperors coat.

Property Prices Crash Under the Flight Path

Property Prices on one recently built development under the flight path in Greenwich have crashed whilst those less than a few minutes walk away, but not under the flight path, nor in the noise contour, are flourishing. So it seems that the current general credit crunch effects cannot be applied.

A campaigner recently had their home valued and was told that their property value had decreased by £57,000 in 3 years. And this is just the tip of the iceberg other residents in the same development have lost over £100,000.

It's a tale of two developments - with exactly the same problems - but the only difference being that one is beneath the flight path.

London City Airport recently asked their friends to prove that airport expansion doesn't effect property prices. Interestingly their friends were not brave enough to use the area around London City Airport as an example. Instead they used Farnborough and Heathrow. Once again, it was a clear case of skirting around the real issue, something that LCA is so good at.

Something which is more valuable, and not tinged by the aviation industry is a study by Stop Stanstead Expansion group who were lucky enough to have a specialist to look at the effects of expansion on property values around Stanstead Airport. They estimated, after having looked at property data from over a period of years that: there had been a loss of £800 million on the value of local properties around the Stanstead areas.

What is more, Newham was also plummetting behind on the property front some time ago according to the Newham Recorder, well behind property trends elsewhere.

So how are the Government, house builders and land owners in the areas affected going to convince eager home owners to buy in the Thames Gateway which is overflown by LCA flights at low level? They say there is shortage of homes, but the Thames Gateway already has an image problem without Public Safety Zones and excrutiating noise levels of up to the mid - late 80dbs.

Developments such as Silvertown Quays, Tamesis Point and many others are going to have their work cut out. We'd like to see the developers be more vocal about the effects of expansion on the properties they are building- as the cat is definately out of the bag based on all the current evidence whether they like it or not. Why else wouldn't property agents be telling prospective buyers about the airport expansion plans and the associated noise, whilst others only like to show buyers around at the no flight time - Saturday afternoons.

All in all it's just another way in which residents are paying for the operation of London City Airport and the airlines, along with the £7million pound annual security that London taxpayers pay (which Richard Gooding has no intention of paying - see Wanstead and Woodford Guardian Q & A session with Richard Gooding) , the tax breaks, the pollution and effects on residents health. All picked up by...you, the taxpayer and local resident.

Greenwich and Lewisham Public Meeting

Wednesday 23^rd April

7.30 pm

Recital Room, Blackheath Halls

23 Lee Rd, SE3 9RQ

Speaker: John Stewart, Chair HACAN

What the Government’s proposals could mean for South East London:

All flights will land over South East London if Heathrow Expansion plans go ahead

Introduction of ‘Mixed-Mode’ at Heathrow: 730 flights a day

Third Runway: 950 flights a day

‘Mixed-Mode and a Third Runway 1100 flights a day

The maps produced by the Department during its recent consultation on Heathrow expansion show that all aircraft landing over London will join their final landing path as far east as Woolwich and Bexley and then fly in two parallel paths to Heathrow.

The northern flight path: Greenwich – Peckham – Camberwell – Vauxhall

The southern flight path: Blackheath – Deptford – Dulwich – Stockwell/Brixton

________________________________________________________________________

Residents in south east London must not forget that these flights are in addition to the current flights at London City Airport - and their dream of having 176,000 flights per year - which all adds up to making South East London a very noisy and polluted place to live in. If you have not already entered your postcode on the NATs website to see how the proposed new flight paths will affect you please do - some residents were shocked to find themselves under 12 flight paths in the area they live in within south east London!

For some, 'sweet dreams' will be a thing of the past.

FTF

How's Life Around London City Airport - A Bowl of Cherries?

We're sorry to say that life for the communities around the airport is far from a bowl of cherries.

University College London have created the London Profiler, a mapping tool which when you search a borough or postcode and select to search for illness levels, deprivation, income levels, barriers to housing etc it highlights areas to the level of deprivation they suffer.

On our first view of this splendid tool of the areas around London City Airport we have noticed that the following categories all fall into the 1st, 2nd or 3rd, 4th most deprived categories in and around London City Airport:

• exceptionally high levels of admission to hospital for heart attacks, for male and females in the areas adjacent to the airport and directly under the east bound flight path,
• income
  
• employment
  
• crime
• health, deprivation and disability
• barriers to housing and services
• living environment

It's always helpful to see a map of the economic and social, health pointers to dispel the spin that London City Airport feed to residents that they have done so much for the area in 20 years.

To us here at Fight the Flights it doesn't look as if they could have done any less, or have had a more negative impact for the communities that are around them! So who is benefitting from the airports presence....? That's an easy one....

All answers to the usual address at Pinnochio Way please!!

Part 1: The Scandal of London City Airport's Public Safety Zones

We've been looking into the issue of Public Safety Zones (PSZ) for some time now after initially seeing a toy town map in the original application by LCA. Newham Council initially told us that the expansion of the PSZ was 'minimal' when we asked if it would be covering many more homes. Minimal is a word we have heard and read a lot since dealing with LCA and Newham. Unfortunately their 'minimal' often means completely the opposite in our experience. Since then requests for rather more grown up, professional, current and future PSZ maps have been met by LCA and now the situation has become somewhat clearer for some households.

However clarity of the maps and the dwellings that the PSZ extends over has not provided reassurance at all, it has provided anxiety and a lot of questions that are going unanswered by Newham Council Planning Department and London City Airport (LCA). Ever heard that phrase 'it is not a planning issue' - here at Fight The Flights we've heard that more often than we care to mention. So much for Sir Robin's "it's important to me to represent you and to listen to your views".

The Department for Transport has provided guidance for authorities in regard to building and current dwellings in PSZ's. Essentially no new building is allowed to occur, unless planning permission was given before the PSZ was drawn up. Homes that are currently not in the PSZ but will find themselves in it if expansion goes ahead won't be getting too much support from the Government/Newham/LCA it seems. Dft make it clear that: “The economic costs of removing existing development throughout the Zones would, however, outweigh the safety benefits of doing so, and the Secretary of State is therefore not proposing that course”. So LCA can continue to keep their wallets tightly closed on this one.

That's reassuring.

The PSZ is a map, which is a triangular area extending out from each end of the run way. It has been calculated to be at most risk of an aviation incident at landing or take off. The maps size and length is calculated on a variety of issues, the number of flights and types being just a couple of the factors which influence it's size. So more flights equals a larger PSZ - and in West Thamesmead, Greenwich in particular this means many more family homes will find themselves in this high risk zone. Now, you would think that those dwellings that will find themselves in the new enlarged PSZ, would be the first to be told by Newham about this. Well, surprise they have not been told at all - and unless they read this and have read through the PSZ documents they will have no idea at all. In reality all we can tell them is that their properties will be in the zone - we can't tell them what the implications will be as Newham Council and London City Airport have not provided that information even though it has been requested.

The PSZ maps indicate that the following roads, and buildings will be in the new zone on the east side of the runway: Hill House, Bridge House, Defence Close - Gallions Reach Urban Village, SE28. Unfortunately we are not talking about just one or two dwellings being bought into the PSZ, but hundreds. If you wish to see this map please email Fight the Flights and an electronic copy will be sent to you.

Our main concerns regarding PSZ's are:

1. Do the residents that are in homes within the new PSZ maps realise that they are?
2. Will they be able to get insurance on their properties?
3. Will their property be eligible for a mortgage when it comes to selling or switching mortgages?
4. Will the value of their property be affected?

Realistically - would you want to purchase/live in a property that is in a PSZ? Well if your answer is no, and many others say the same then it's likely it will affect the values of the homes.
We feel it is SCANDALOUS that LCA and Newham Council are not willing to answer these questions.

But we are not only concerned about the economic issue but also of the safety of these residents: Mums, Dads, Grandparents, Children, they could be your relations...they all live in the area.

And what does this say about LCA and Newham? We think it says a lot - that they simply don't care about residents safety at all.
.
We'd also say this is yet another one of the very good reasons why residents and council's should be objecting to and blocking LCA's expansion

Coming Soon - Part 2 The scandal of London City Airport's Public Safety Zone

Newham Council takes a consultation U turn!

Newham Council Planning Department are finally held to rights and ARE responsible for consulting directly with residents in Greenwich and all adjoining occupiers (meaning boroughs)! This is thanks to dedicated campaigners across the boroughs with the expertise of Airport Watch, Friends of the Earth and the Environmental Law Foundation.

When on January 14 our resident campaigners in the Borough of Greenwich (which had not been consulted) reported that they had received London City Airport application consultation letters dated January 7 from Newham Council, we were pleasantly surprised to say the least. Since October they have been waiting, and waiting for somebody to consult with them.

However, as all residents are entitled to have 4 weeks in which to respond to requests for objections - we have requested that the deadline to objections, currently February 6, should be extended to allow residents a full 4 weeks in which to consider the application. We are also asking how many residents have been written to, the radius and if this consultation is extending to the other neighbouring boroughs.

Yes, it may seem as if a miracle occured sometime over Christmas, that or Newham Council finally began to realise that they were not going to slip this application through as quietly as they had hoped and flout the Town and Country Planning Order (General Development Procedure) 1995. This act requires the determining local authority (Newham) to notify adjoining occupiers.

Sadly it's not the first time that Newham seem to have flouted this law, we're already aware that an application by London City Airport in January 2007 ( to increase the number of flights permitted in any one day) was slipped through quietly, at many residents loss. But Fight the Flights is watching events and developments closely now.....

If you are in a borough which is affected but have not been consulted - then quote the Town and Planning Act listed here to your local planning department and request that they ensure Newham Council consult you too.