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

HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Major Report Confirms Aircraft Noise Levels in East London can Match Those in West London

For immediate use

The controversial research published last week by campaign group Fight the Flights which showed that aircraft noise levels in parts of East London can match those in West London has been backed up by earlier research carried out by the respected firm of acousticians, Bureau Veritas.

The report, No Place to Hide, published in 2007, found that the combined noise of Heathrow and City aircraft over Poplar matched the noise in parts of West London. It recorded 84 planes flying over in a two hour period, 45 Heathrow and 26 City Airport. The noise level of the Heathrow aircraft ranged from 60 – 69 decibels and the City aircraft from 64 – 82 decibels.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path and which commissioned the report, said, “Those sort of levels are higher than parts of West London. We can’t get away from the fact that aircraft noise has become a real problem in East London.”

Stewart was critical of City Airport’s reaction to the Fight the Flight’s findings, “the Airport cast doubt on the findings because they said they were not carried out in accordance with internationally-recognised methods of measuring aircraft noise or performed by independent professional acoustic consultants. Our report was and it came up with very similar results. Stephen Turner, the Director of Bureau Veritas is one of the country’s most respected acousticians. Indeed, his firm were the advisers to Newham Council when it approved plans for the expansion of the airport. The bosses of City Airport have to come to terms with the fact that they work in a very noisy industry and not hide behind fine-sounding words.”

ENDS

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated: 9/11/10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise, Whilst BACityflyer and LCY Celebrate the Noisiest Jets

PRESS RELEASE – IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 08.11.10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise

"It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport”.

Greenwich Council Planning Committee voted to support expansion at London City Airport on the basis that the airport introduce more jets to replace propellor planes in the belief that they are quieter and have less impact on the communities. But this is contradicted by work done by the Civil Aviation Authority. It shows that Jets at London City Airport are significantly noisier than propeller planes – in particular the new Embraer E series jets are considerably noisier than the old BAE RJ Avro 'whisper jets' that they are replacing (1).

Fight the Flights, the campaign group which is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London next week (2), can reveal these figures as London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer welcome with some fanfare the 700th E jet using the airport (3). 


The new jets have already impacted on community noise levels showing an increase in complaints being made to the airport as discussed in the London City Airport Consultative Committee Meetings (4). 

The noise difference between a propellor plane and an Embraer E series jet on take off/reverse thurst landing is an increase of 13dbs, this represents a 130% noise impact increase in real terms and is comparable to standing beside a road drill. The difference between an old jet and the new jets is 5dbs on a gliding approach which represents a 50% increase in noise impact in real terms. 

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights commented: “It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe the jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport. Surely if a borough is heavily overflown at just a few hundred feet on arrival and departures any council would wish to consider the noise impact above their borough not only the noise impact a mile away in another borough”. 

She added: “The Planning Officer either failed to understand the official statistics on the aircraft noise profiles and impact or was given incomplete information as the jets used are far noisier than the propeller planes. In a Freedom of Information request Greenwich Council revealed that their decision and understanding of the noise levels was based on stationary aircraft noise readings measured on the airports runway, approximately a mile away in London Borough of Newham. Greenwich has significant residential areas, including schools, covered by excessive noise levels”. 

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation:official noise database: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/

Noise Level of 

Propellor plane: ATR-42 Model: ATR42-500 Engine:PW127M 80.7db on full power lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing.

Jet aircraft: Embraer 190 Model:ERJ190-100 Engine: CF34010R6A0-1 93.3db on full lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing 


2. The legal challenge is taking place at the Courts of Justice on the Strand on 18th and 19th November. FTF launched it, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newham’s 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.

3. London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer celebrate the 700th E jet : http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1245

4. An increase in complaints regarding the new larger jets: Embraer E series, being used at London City Airport has been discussed at the London City Airport Consultative Committee, with complaints being raised by two local Newham Councillors: 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin0710.pdf     Item 17E 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin1010.pdf      Item 6J 


Additional sources of information: 
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 [as opposed to the propellor planes they are replacing], 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) 

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

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).

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

For more information: 

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

Press Release dated 08/11/10

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.

The Royal Docks School...And a Hedge Fund

A few weeks back we blogged on the issue of the airport disrupting childrens education. We asked for someone to help those fantastic teachers and kids down at the Royal Docks School.The noise and pollution that the school is exposed to is in breach of EU laws and WHO guidelines. But LB Newham and this government, including Boris Johnson, Mayor of London don't care!

Well it looks like Fat Cat Goodings' friend Weasel Wales is going to do something about it to stop his buddy being embarrassed by the school anymore - He's flogging it off to a Hedge Fund!Teachers and unions are up in arms at the Weasel wanting to turn the school into Newhams' first Academy.

The Anti Academy Alliance reports:

"ARK is an American and British sponsor run by a group of billionaire and millionaire merchant bankers, hedge fund operators and currency speculators. First on the list of ARK corporate sponsors is Aspect Capital. Aspect funds are (according to their website) ‘organised as exempted companies incorporated with limited liability in the Cayman Islands, the investment activities of the funds are not regulated or otherwise overseen by the Caymans Islands’ government or any other regulator.’

Another offshore account holding company in the Royal Docks? We already have the Airport landowners using facilities in offshore Jersey accounts!

" The Royal Docks School has a very high proportion of special needs children. We feel an academy would use permanent exclusions to reduce that figure significantly, as has happened in many academies in an effort to improve exam results. There is no compulsion on an academy to admit pupils with special educational needs. The easier way to turn the reputation of an academy around is to change its pool of students; to alter who it recruits and to deselect those it does not wish to retain, by use of exclusion"

And we already know that Newham failed to do a Race Equality Impact Study for the Royal Docks in the airports expansion plans, so LB Newham are clearly out of touch with their communities. Perhaps the easiest way to help this school and it's pupils is to reduce the excessive noise and air pollution levels overhead! Excessive noise levels from aviation sources have been proven to affect chidren's development.

So Weasel Wales the autocrat continues to suck up to big business, so that big business can suck out the life of Newham, whilst making a tidy packet of profit. In the process the taxpayer will end up supporting a company in making huge profits - we do after all pay the LCA security bill and the rather generous tax breaks that aviation receive.

You can download all the information on the anti-academy plans here including a petition. Unfotunately, as we learned the hard way in LB Newham a petition is conveniently only ever counted as ONE complaint - Our 2 petitions with over 600 signatures were only classed as TWO complaints during the planning process.

Help them, help the children.

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!

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

It's Simply a Rule of Thumb and, Do 406 Employees Make LCA a Major Employer in Newham?

Yet more evidence on just how much deception and collusion is going on between the aviation industry and government.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4364216.ece

It is no surprise for those residents in East and South East London who are affected by London City Airport operations and whom are concerned at the possiblity of further flight expansion. They've been finding out lots of dirty secrets over the past 9 months.

Compare the Times article with:

1. London City Airport failed to take any accurate noise readings of it's departing aircraft for 7 years - despite the amount of planes being allowed to operate being based on a noise factored movement.

2.This means that London City Airport could have been allowing more noise factored movements than permitted in the Section 106 agreement.

3. Noise levels from individual craft at London City Airport could have exceeded beyond those set out in the Section 106 agreement to the detriment of the health and well being of local residents. This means that there are no accurate noise readings or noise contour maps for the whole of the areas around the airport. No evidence is available to ensure that the airport has/is not exceeding the agreed noise limits or that homes have received the noise mitigation that they are entitled to.

4. LB Newham have failed to take any action in 7 years which ensured that London City Airport carried out regular and reliable noise data collection.

5. London City Airport, in its current application, has based it's case for flight expansion on estimated, unreliable noise and environmental data - purely because their methods of monitoring on site have failed consistently due to a lack of their committment to the requirements of the last planning application. Spot any parallels with the Heathrow Consultation debacle?

6. It appears that The Department for Transport has happily accepted 'estimated' noise data from London City Airport for 6 years as part of the EU directive requirement for all airports to provide annual data on noise contours. Did they never question why it was estimated, and not real, and the reason behind this, not even once?

7. Stephen Timms, MP for Newham supports expansion on the basis of adequate environmental measures and noise mitigation being implemented. He has failed to ensure that the environmental and noise measurements have been carried out, in his borough, for 7 years, where has he been? He has clearly not raised this as a concern with the LB of Newham, nor with the airport and continues to neglect to mention this in his articles. What confidence can residents have in him in ensuring the airport will meet future obligations, if they have failed consistently in the past, with no challenge from the authorities?

8. Job Growth - lies, lies and more lies. We all know that the job figures from London City Airport are a closely guarded secret, particularly the amount of Newham residents who are employed. Why? Because the figures are not as LCA promote, sorry, spin, them to be, and they are not flattering to them at all. It's something about 'burying bad news'.

Insiders inform us that they are not at all happy with what they feel is the ''purposeful deception of the community into the belief that there has been or will be so many extra jobs at London City Airport'' . The LB Newham is supposed to collect annual job data from LCA - it appears that this had not occured if we are to take the word of LCA's Richard Gooding in a letter to Stephen Timms MP.

In addition Stephen Timms claims that the airport has "created 2000 jobs". What he doesn't tell you is how he calculated this figure - we believe he has added on the jobs in the local hotels and other neighbouring businesses (courtesy of the information being passed over from the LCA spin machine no doubt), even cab drivers- but how could he possibly isolate all these jobs outside of the airport as a direct result of the airport activities - and not the Excel Centre, or tourists looking for the best value hotel room in London?

LCA customer profiles indicate that the majority of their users earn on average over £86,000 per annum. It seems more likely that they perhaps would consider the Four Seasons Hotel in Docklands, or one of an equal standard in zone 1, over the lower star chains stituated by the airport, which suffer from up to 87db noise levels in the areas around them.

In fact the airport directly employs just 406 employees - as stated in a letter to Stephen Timms MP. The airport could not indicate how many of those 406 staff were part time.

Apparently, according to Stephen, the employment of 406 staff, none of whom could be identified as Newham residents by LCA at the time that the letter was written, nor of how many are part time makes LCA a 'major employer' in Newham. How's that? We think he is getting confused with THE major employer - Newham Council or perhaps Tate and Lyle?

The airport therefore does not employ 2000 people directly - and the use of the sentence 'created 2000 jobs' by Stephen Timms does nothing more than purposely continue to mislead the communities into reading that 2000 LCA jobs have been created - which they have not. Still, perhaps he is just following the precedent set by the Heathrow example.

It all smacks of collusion, maladministration and a purposeful deception of the communities for the purpose of big business getting its way, at any cost.

Residents have been let down and misled - it's time to make all these individuals accountable. Expansion cannot be based on estimates of noise and pollution, and the shocking lack of committment of the airport and the local council to ensure that conditions are met can only lead the majority to have a vote of 'no confidence' in them.

When most people do a bad job, fail to meet targets, requirements etc they usually get penalised for that - that's of course only if they haven't made lots of money for big business by failing to adminster the requirements. The making of money, and of looking after one's own career, of course supercedes all the other failures.

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/