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

London City Airport Continues to Fail Local Residents

Or how the fat cats continue to use your tax money to avoid paying their own way and promote it as 'community work'.

London City Airport spend a lot of time on Public Relations.  They go into overdrive, but spectacularly continue to alienate the residents who suffer the most as they are rarely, if ever made contact with.

The airport is keen at putting out press releases on how many t shirts it has bought, or how many hampers it has given away, or the latest christmas card competition for schools in Newham and Tower Hamlets, or how they've sent someone to talk to schoolchildren about careers.  But the airport owes the community much, much more especially the residents. But it's the residents, and what they have to put up with, who are consistently ignored. 

The airport currently saves £7 million every year by refusing to contribute to it's security costs to the Metropolitan Police. It would perhaps be admirable if the airport would simply pay up, but as a consolation the airport could offer that money to the charities and schools it wishes to support, rather than expect London taxpayers to pay 100% of their security costs in the first place. This selfish, greedy action of London City Airport deprives the London public purse of huge amounts of money which would indeed be filtered back down into policing and education as it should be.

Instead the airport goes for the cheapest deal of all and donated around £36,000 to charities last year. Not to be sniffed at of course, but read on and you will see the bigger picture. Some of those thousands will be the donations given directly by residents and passed through the middleman of LCY from the Funday etc.  But for an airport that avoids paying £7m a year, it makes the donation look relatively small  in comparision and clearly the impact of not paying the £7m has a far greater impact on reducing services to you, the resident in your community.  Of course more public money from London tax payers was also poured into this private business owned by a bank and hedge funders GIP: the London Development Agency gave them a huge amount of grants to build additional aircraft stands and set up their LCY website! Can you believe it, they were actually given  taxpayers money to set up their website, how many small businesses would ever get that help?

The public relations are clearly welcome to those that are receiving the gifts and advice, however there is one huge flaw: London City Airport continue to fail to engage fully and openly with residents who suffer the most. Not only do they fail to engage, they have consistently failed to put any plan together to effectively improve residents quality of life as a result of the airports operations.  The draft noise action plan was a wonderful illustration of this - the airport felt at the time of drafting that nothing was bad, and there was no need for them to make any efforts to reduce or keep noise to the current levels - business as usual then! Those 1000s of individuals who make up East London, and who are the life and soul are invisible to London City Airport, they are the inconvenient truth, a reminder of the bad things that happen around airports, the pollution, the noise - all things that the airport prefers to ignore or deny.

Our argument is not that the airport are giving t shirts away or speaking to schoolchildren or donating money to charities, we think that is what any large corporate business who receives lots of public funding should indeed do: but  is about why they are not proactively looking for solutions to improve the environment and residents quality of lives in the areas affected. They are IGNORING residents suffering. 

It is a half baked PR strategy, a cynical one that completely ignores the ordinary resident of the streets, roads and closes that suffer intolerably from flights 7 days a week and if they have their way will simply get worse. It's always been the same at LCY, their communication with residents has been defensive, poor and of little help in providing accurate information. Residents have simply been left to pick up the pieces, year on year, and no better example was the one where residents were left to deal with the extra 20,000 flights the airport operated despite it being against the planning agreement. It translated into a noise nightmare that year and you know, they didn't care about residents, they, GIP were simply counting the dollars and pounds.

Ask yourself, what have LCY done to help you with noise and pollution from their operations? It's likely that a few of you have been told to keep your windows closed and have mechanical ventilation which is noisy,costly to run and leaves the room stifling, or they simply said they can't help you at all even though you live in the noise contour.

That, we are afraid, is the naked truth and no amount of PR trips to the local school are going to help the resident who has to put up with excessive noise and air pollution 7 days a week for almost every day of the year. Residents are simply left asking for help, and getting little or nothing in return whilst the MET are pretty much in the same boat with the airport, asking for their money but never getting it.

Perhaps it's time the airport put it's brave hat on,faced the residents and started looking at and working towards positive solutions to deal with the dirty noisy industry they want to make lots of money from at the expense of the local community. Residents have had no choice but to face up to reality, it's about time London City Airport did too.

The Human Cost of London City Airports Expansion

Over the past three years of the Fight the Flights campaign we have seen a steady increase in residents getting in contact with us. Over the past 18 months this has risen dramatically. What they all indicate is the problem of London City Airport (LCY) flight noise, and the accumulative effect of flight noise from both London City Airport and Heathrow, and how far the problem spreads out across East and South East London.  We appreciate that London City Airport doesn't like to hear this fact (they have the advantage of not having to listen, unlike most residents under their flight path) but they have contributed significantly to bringing West London noise levels to East and South East London.

We have also noticed that the emails from residents have steadily become more and more unhappy, for many at the realisation that they are not entitled to any noise insulation despite having been given that impression by comments made by London City Airport and the planning authority, Newham Council, in the past. Others have been massively affected by the change of flight paths by the Civil Aviation Authority. Newham has readily passed the buck on this, as do London City Airport on this issue. But if London City Airport flight paths had to be changed due to jets not being able to use the same departure routes as the old propellor planes, who asked to use the jets, and who approved their use, and the additional flights in the past?  Relevent points to consider.

Residents aren't buying the pass the buck scenario any longer as their private lives in their homes and communities have become increasingly invaded by the activities of London City Airport and of course also Heathrow. Bearing in mind that flights are currently down around 25,000 per annum on what they were 2 years ago, when Newham Council allowed London City Airport to breach it's flight limits by around 20,000, then you will appreciate that things are only going to get worse when flight numbers increase again.  This is why it is essential that residents continue to speak out, write/email their local councillors, MPs, MEPs, GLA member, Civil Aviation Authority, local papers and complain to Newham Council, the planning authority for London City Airport, by email or letter. We appreciate that this takes time, but it is the only way that politicians will understand the breadth of the problem and take steps towards assisting you.

Residents are always welcome to contact FTF for help and advice and we will always do our best to assist or put you in contact with someone who can help. Please be patient if we take time to respond though, which can occasionally happen due to our workload. What is important is that if you have only began to notice aircraft noise and are disturbed by it recently then you understand that you are not alone. It is not unreasonable and residents are certainly not a nuisance if they complain. It is your right to complain if you are being negatively effected and we believe it is your right to expect to be listened to and for your concerns to be acted upon.  There are 100,000s of residents who are experiencing the same right across London, you are most certainly not alone.  

We'd also ask you to consider donating to FTF using the paypal facility on the website. FTF runs financially on next to nothing, but we do need to pay for things such as website domain costs and the odd ream of paper. Donations however small are very much appreciated! You can donate on Paypal HERE

In the meantime we'd like to share just a few of the comments we've received from residents which we feel indicate the impact of the dreadful blight of newer but bigger noisier jets at London City airport, increased LCY flight numbers over the years, the flight path changes and in addition Heathrow flights. These are the hidden stories of lives blighted by an airport that got too big for it's own good and was allowed to runaway with expansion over the years:

"I have lived [by London City Airport] for 58 years and since the introduction of the new jets the noise is insufferable. In the inseption of the STOLPORT the airport installed double glazing to all properties front and back. But since the introduction of these new Jets the double glazing is not fit for purpose and the airport should upgrade to sound proof from the noise is there anything that you can do for the residents in [my road]". Resident of Newham.

"I live locally near Royal Victoria. I share your view against City Airport expansion and the flight noise. I have written to Newham council complaining about the noise but so far the response is not meaningful (mayor has not come back at of today). What i was told that they categorise the plane by its noise emission so they can have less jet planes compared to more propeller planes (i really don't think Newham council keeps any record of how many jet planes fly out of the city airport every day). You are doing a great job for the local community. Keep up the effort!!!!" Resident of Newham.

"I have lived in this borough [Newham] for nearly fifty years, I have seen a lot of changes but this one is the worse, I cannot sleep at nights in the morning five o'clock on the dot they start to go every seconds another all through the day one can't hear the television if one is on the phone, you cannot hear a word. I have spoken my landlord asking if they would install double glazing, they are too many planes, we need to do something about this annoyance." Resident of Newham.

"The noise pollution from flights in this area is unbearable. Every morning we are woken up by flights. We cannot go into the garden because airplanes are rattling overhead every 60 seconds. On the weekend relaxing at home is impossible because we sit with teeth on edge, waiting for the next jet to zoom overhead. I used to work from home but have been hounded out of the house by the noise and now have to go to local libraries or cafes to get some respite from the planes. So to recap: LCY stops us from being able to sleep. It stops us from being able to sit in our garden It stops us from being able to relax at home. And it stops me from being able to work at home. LCY stops us from being able to almost everything we should be able to do in our own home. Our choices? Spend £25,000 insulating the house (which we don't have). Or sell the house. Or have a miserable existence in our own home. To say that those are "choices" is nonsense." Resident of Tower Hamlets.

"I am still absolutely fed up with being disturbed by aircraft noise. I am woken up most mornings by aircraft noise at just after 06.00. From then on the flights are more or less continuous through the day- howling, roaring and whining. There are hundreds and hundreds of flights passing over my house every day. This is a relatively recent problem so there must have been a radical change in fight paths. WHY WAS THERE NO CONSULTATION?" Resident of Redbridge.

"When I moved to W Forest 10 years ago and to this address 5 yrs ago the only thing we heard was the ocassional vehicle and the birds! We thought we had found that peace until one day I think last year I was sitting in my back garden and heard several plane noises overhead. I really thought it unusual and it must be a one off. Then I notice it happened for a few more days and went on my computer to see if I could find any news about it.  I cannot believe that such an important change could be allowed without consulting with residents and have to think that this is because it affects poorer London boroughs in East London". Resident of Waltham Forest

"I live in Redbridge and although I appreciate that the noise I have to endure is minimal compared to those poor people living in the shadow of City Airport, it is really getting on my nerves, especially when low flying airplanes rumble through my double glazing after midnight! Oh.. there goes another one, as I'm typing". Resident of Redbridge

"In the last six months I have noticed inreased levels of air traffic in my area. Sometimes I can count three separate planes in the sky and the noise is becoming almost constant. I am very worried that additional flights will be granted into City Airport". Resident of Southwark 

"The volcanic ash crisis brought some relief from the noise, and reminded us all of how things used to be before they imposed this on us. Just this week the flights have been continuous after coming home from work, getting noisier and noisier which is almost unbearable". Resident of Havering.

"For several weeks now we have been noticing aircraft noise and believe it is an increase of flights going into City Airport. We live in Swanley  just on the edge of Dartford Borough. Obviously the noise here is not as bad as closer to the airport but does, I believe, show the extent of the problem. Before this year we have never noticed the planes, and have only noticed them more now, now that the weather is warmer and we have the windows and doors open. Additionally there are definitely more flights. If we sit in the garden at times we can hardly talk to each other".  Resident of Sevenoaks District Council

London City Airport Complaints Rise by 2,650%

In a freedom of information request to Newham Council it has been revealed that complaints made directly to them about noise from London City Airport have risen by a massive 2,650% over a period of 5 years.

Whilst Newham Council and London City Airport have gone to great pains to justify expansion, they have often claimed that complaint levels were low, alledgedly suggesting that there had not been any real increase in complaint levels over the years.

Even more shockingly, this massive increase only represents those complaints made directly to Newham Council. It does NOT include complaints made directly to London City Airport, National Air Traffic Systems, MPs, Councillors, the Civil Aviation Authority or any other London Borough such as Redbridge, Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Barking & Dagenham, Bexley and Waltham Forest to name a few affected. We can therefore assume that this figure is just the tip of the iceberg.

To our knowledge these figures have never been made public before and indicate the increasing negative effect, and rise in complaints due to a continued increase in flights, and the use of jets at London City Airport. If we compare the increase to the percentage increase in the use of larger, noisier jets at London City Airport, there is a clear correlation.

Air Transport Movements – % of Jets Used at London City Airport - Provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

2004 - 28%

2005 - 36%

2006 - 37%

2007 - 50%

2008 - 58%

2009 - [without data]

In 2004 there were just 28% of jets at the airport. By 2007 when the jets made up 50% of flights out of London City Airport complaints more than doubled in one year. With the last percentage of jets being stated at 58% by the CAA in 2008, and complaints having increased by over 2000% since, then it is clear evidence that the activities of London City Airport are disturbing and affecting the quality of life for more and more east and south east Londoners than ever before. What is more this snapshot of complaints from just one source shows that residents complaints have been growing incredibly fast, and have clearly been ignored and played down by Newham Council in discussions over London City Airport expansion.

FTF will be carrying out further research on the amount of complaints which are being received regarding London City Airport and we will report back with updates.

London City Airport Noise Complaints Flying In

We have been astounded by the amount of emails which we have been receiving over the last two months from residents complaining about London City Airport aircraft noise. Most have said that the noise has become more problematic since the spring - and some are stating that they are noticing planes flying overhead, which they have never had before.

The complaints about the noise have been coming from right across south and east London, and Essex and Kent. Now we note that the excellent Barkingside 21 blog has reflected something simliar occuring in their area.

Residents concerned with aircraft noise and flightpaths are welcome to contact us for information and signposting on where you can go to for information about your concerns.

12 FACTS about London City Airport

• Failed to take actual reliable noise readings from 2000 to 2008

• Failed to take reliable air readings from 2000 to 2008
• Since 2006 the airport has been exceeding their air traffic movement limit of 76,000, steadily climbing to almost 100,000
• Failed to have an efficient and accurate complaints system
• Consistently deceived the community by providing incorrect and partial misinformation.
• Noise mitigation programme years behind schedule
• Noise mitigation eligibility: Only homes built or given approval after 1997 are eligible for noise management – this excludes around 99% of homes in projected noise contours.
• 46,000 additional residents across 3 boroughs will be bought into the noise contours, 100,000s of residents will be affected beyond the contour
• An estimated 1000 family homes in Greenwich will be in the extended public safety zone (crash zone)
• Drew Road Primary School is less than 200 yards from the airport terminal
• The airport is situated in the most densely populated area of the whole country
• Aviation is the fastest growing source of C02 emissions and if it continues at it's current rate will use up all the Climate Bill emission allowance, even with using carbon credits
  The climate bill accepts the effect of greenhouse gases on our environment – aviation is ignoring it and is being given preferential treatment in doing so.
  

LCA Throws A Tantrum Over Crossrail, and MONEY

Christmas is over .The new year hangover has come and gone and you patiently wait to see how much this months credit card bill will be. The January Blues have well and truly arrived.

Well fear not Fight the Flights fans, we decided to cheer you up with some fun non fiction that will have you laughing till tears run down your face.

Yes it's the "Humble" petition from London City Airport against Crossrail.

3 Petitions have been put in against Crossrail to the House Of Lords by London City Airport and 'related' Businesses.

(1) City Aviation Properties Limited have put in the first. They are the freeholders of City Airport. While they have an office here in London, their accounts are registered in Jersey. Yes Jersey, that little Tax Haven. Why would City Aviation want to register their accounts in Jersey we wonder??!

(2) Marketspur Limited have put in the next. They own the head leasehold on LCA.

(3) London City Airport Limited. The airport operators.

London City Airport really don't want Crossrail on their patch. And if it's going to happen they want it on their terms. Or be heavily compensated.

So lets delve into this little masterpiece shall we, and point out some of the hypocrisy.... Perhaps make yourself a cup of tea first, its a long one! This is what the cry babies and R.Go at LCA are asking for:

(11)
(c) where a local planning authority proposes to grant permission for the development or to grant permission subject to conditions , in a manner contrary to the advice of the consultee , they must notify both the CAA and the consultee.

(d) following this notice the local planning authority may not grant planning permission before the expiry of a period of a 28 days from the date advised in writing by the consultee as the date of the relevant information.This provides the CAA and the consultee with an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to cal in proposals for his own determination.

LB Newham (LBN) and London City Airport (LCA) DID NOT consult with the CAA on the increase of additional flights over East London. They failed to mention this and it took a member of the public to uncover this information and another to read this out in the Newham Planning Meeting on the night of the 'decision' in October 08. This is in our opinion a complete failure of duty of care to the public and a disregard for the mechanisms set up to control and promote safety. In one of the most densely populated areas with thousands of people working and living in a Public Safety Zone (PZN) , LBN and LCA have not taken advice from the most important authority and regulator. Why? And looking at point (c) while the extra flights were granted , some of the extra flights , for example early morning , were contrary to the advice from LCA so they were obliged to notify the CAA , where they not?

(19)
The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone.Aircraft operations at London City Airport cannot be modified to accommodate the extent of activity in this area. Should such activity be deemed to be unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority , restrictions may be imposed on the aerodrome licence , which would severely curtail or prevent commercial operations.......

So is this why the CAA have not been consulted on extra flights? LCA have refused to use the methodology used by DfT in the working out of their next PSZ because the size grows enormously as a result of expansion. We have highlighted the grave concerns over the PSZ and Connaught Bridge, all of which have been dismissed by LBN and LCA. And as LBN has decided to move 2000 staff into Building 1000 , which could be within the PSZ when remodeled due to expansion, is this not a violation of the objective of the PSZ. LBN have ignored all our concerns about the PSZ and now staff are being moved into a building that looks set to be in the 'crash zone'. There will be 2000 staff , plus visitors etc all now congregating within a growing potential PSZ, Excel, Ramada, Building 1000 and residential all look to be covered. But don't worry the airport are paying off some of the landowners and leaseholders for covering their land or property with a crash zone - yes unbeknown to you they are paying to put you in danger!

(26)
.....Your petitioner also requires the Promoter to be bound personally by the specific code of practice for the works in the vicinity of the Airport in order to migrate and regulate all construction and operational impacts of Crossrail.

A Binding code of practice. Say something like a Section 106 perhaps? LCA have broken the binding Section 106 many times. Out of Hours flights , failure to give complete noise data , to name but some. When we, the public, ask LBN to hold LCA to account over these breaches of planning law, it's dismissed out of hand.

(30)
Your Petitioner is also apprehensive about the noise , vibration , dust and other environmental effects of the construction works in the vicinity of the Jet Centre which may result in a decline in the usage of the Jet Centre. Your petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound personally by a specific code of practice to minimise or mitigate such effects and a full and sufficient indemnity in respect of any financial loss it may suffer.

Section 106! Section 106! Residents around the airport have been failed by LBN to uphold the S106 for LCA. The noise suffered is unbearable.While the average noise claimed is 57db over 16 hours, Newham themselves have taken readings of up to 90db and above.

The Health and Safety Law states that there is an exposure limit of 87db for workers. Protection and training of noise starts at 80bd. Workers should and are protected against noise exposure. This begs the question - are hundreds of companies in Newham breaking the law? If a jet takes off at 92db and a postman is delivering mail and exposed to this noise should he not be wearing protective gear? After all if he hears 92 db jets every 3 minutes over 2 hours while doing his job , his average is certainly not the 57db claimed by LCA. And we are sure that residents might actually welcome dust as opposed to the choking fuel burn they have to endure daily.

(39)
Your petitioner is also greatly concerned by the wider noise , dust , vibration effects of the construction works in the community and the resulting environment that the works will create. Your Petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound by a specific code of construction practice which is fully consulted upon with the local community in order to ensure the minimum impact on surrounding residents and businesses.

Yes I bet you read that twice! First off they want the local community to be consulted. They didn't extend this courtesy to us residents after the shambolic consultation about additional flights. They want minimum impact on residents but the impact on residents from the airport is far more invasive to our lives than anything that Crossrail can do. At least at some point Crossrail will finish. The daily blight from the airport will continue indefinitely.

(40) (41) (42)
Your Petitioner is also greatly concerned that the proposed station for the Royal Docks is located on the north side of Victoria Dock. it seems to your petitioner that this station has been designed to serve inappropriately to serve principally the Excel Exhibition Centre or the northwest quarter of the docks........

Your petitioner submits that a better location for the Royal Docks station would be underneath Connaught Bridge.This would have the potential to serve all four quarters of the Royal Docks....... Your Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Bill to remove authority for the works comprised in the current proposed station to include provision for a replacement station at Connaught Bridge........

There is little evidence to suggest that consideration has been given to integration with the majority of businesses and residents in the Royal Docks..... binding assurances from the Promoter which ensure integration of surface access with surrounding businesses and residents including London City Airport.

Have a quick nip back to point (19) "The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone".

So now they want to move the station to Connaught Bridge in the PSZ? Yes of course they do because now it suits and benefits them. Gone is the concern to minimise the number of people congregating within the Zone. It's all about money now.

Money, Money, Money!

They do not want Excel to have the station. They want it. While businesses across the capital have given financial help to Crossrail - how much have LCA given? To move the station would cost the taxpayer £millions. LCA gave little more that £1 million to have the DLR on their doorstep leading a member of the Lords to declare "they got a good deal... a very good deal"

(52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58)
Compensation Provision

All these sections deal with compensation. LCA want money. Lots and lots of money for any disruption or effects from Crossrail. Yet another bill for the taxpayer to fork out for. Unfortunately they are not very good at sorting out their own compensation. Sound proofing and double glazing to effected residents is still going on. Few residents get full double glazing, only some of their windows. While the airport looks after their own interests, yours have long been forgotten.

And Finally a Drum roll......

(59) HUMAN RIGHTS
Your petitioner submits that in its current form and without further amendment or provision as sought by your petitioner , the Bill is incompatible with the right of your petitioner peacefully to enjoy its property and carry on trade or business.The Bill would unfairly interfere with such right contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human rights....

Read it again.
And again.

To peacefully enjoy it property.
Something that many of us cannot do because of the airport. We take it then perhaps our Human Rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 are being breached by noisy jets? Are you peacefully enjoying your property?

Funnily enough LCA want Crossrail to do what the residents want LCA to do. Protect our homes. Peacefully enjoy our properties.Follow strict guidelines.Proper compensation. Funny when the boot is on the other foot.

As observers, it looks like LCA have a problem. They do not want Crossrail. Former Mayor Livingston said if Crossrail went ahead LCA would no longer be needed. There are also compulsory order provisions in the bill that can take over areas at and around the airport.Hence putting pressure on LBN to administer the Section 106 properly.

They have got away with so much for so long with Newham. But Crossrail is not Newham Council. They can't cajole them into getting what they want. Maybe the hired help Hill & Knowlton are fighting their corner. But H&K have bigger and better paying clients in favour of Crossrail. In such a wide ranging cross London development LCA are small fry. They will try and get the community involved so they can get the puppets of Newham State council involved. The jobs and the connection from Newham to Woolwich and the benefits to communities could be immeasurable.

The link to the full objection is below. Read it and email us your feelings about the hypocrisy of London City Airport.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/014/l63.pdf

Noise Complaints Soar to New Levels at LCA

Noise complaints have soared at London City Airport over the past year.

The effects of the increased use of jets, flights and patterns of flights have had a huge effect on not only Newham residents but also those across neighbouring boroughs. Of course, the airport tries to explain these away as being mostly 'Heathrow flights' and due to the 'summer months'.

Nice try by LCA, just a shame those complaints which do refer to Heathrow planes are so few compared to those complaints which are accurately in relation to LCA flights, and we are not sure if it passed them by, but it wasn't a particularly hot or dry summer, so the privelege of spending time outside was minimal and cannot be 'blamed' for the increase in complaints! You've got to laugh at the lame excuses they come up with.

More news on 'complaints' to follow.