Transport for London, London City Airport and The Cable Car

Pictured above: CAA revised London City Airport PSZ Map

We've been closely following the story of the cable car crossing from North Greenwich to the Royal Docks in Newham and the issue around the Public Safety Zone (PSZ/crash zone). Many of you will know we are fairly familiar with matters of the PSZ and have written about it many times before which can be seen here, here, here and here.

Transport For London (and interested parties) want a cable car to cross the Thames, from the South to the North and land at the West end of the Royal Docks, Newham. There's just one problem though: the cable car goes right through the current PSZ of London City Airport. Low flying planes on landing and take off, a cable, cable houses, and an estimated 5000 travellers an hour, all at the end of London City Airport's runway. It's a bit like putting an electric fan heater in the far corner of a bathroom and hoping that it doesn't get splashed with water (please don't take anything electrical in the bathroom, it is a hazard to life). If an incident were to happen where the cable was broken, it appears the whole cable car system would be affected. We do not want to see anything like the Cavalese Cable Car Incident happen in London.

It appears however that the authorities wish to down play, or actually ignore the PSZ policy which is written by the DfT. Richard de Cani , Director of Strategy and Policy at Transport for London, who submitted the planning application, even went so far to state in the Newham Council Planning Meeting minutes that:

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

So that's alright then!

What concerns us is that TFL choose to ignore something as important as your safety when the DfT have clearly put a policy in place for all airports to protect and reduce the risk to persons in the areas each end of runways. TFL did however suddenly find an interest in the PSZ as they spent a considerable amount of time and days on this blog during the week of the planning meetings.

The DfT circular on the PSZ policy is quite clear: no new developments are to be built in PSZ areas and the people present in the PSZ should be reduced over time. There is a clause for low intensity transport, but 5000 passengers an hour dangling in cable cars from a cable that goes right across the PSZ and flight path of London City Airport flights is not 'low intensity'. The PSZ has grown as the planes have got bigger and more flights are allowed, so the size of the PSZ is simply a further blight on the use of land in East London for regeneration, but it seems that some authorities want to have their cake and eat it, especially if the risk is someone elses. Who better than the unsuspecting public?

Even London City Airport themselves raised the concern of Crossrail using an area of land within the PSZ in the Royal Docks and objected in their petition to the House of Lords:

"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......."

We are told that Transport for London's Richard DiCani was alegedly clasping an out of date PSZ map as his justification for not needing to consider the PSZ at one of the planning meetings. However considering the ATWP is quite clear that any planning authority considering applications around an airport should always take into account the full masterplan, and that the Civil Aviation Authority had released a new PSZ map in mid December to both Greenwich and Newham Councils (which is a notification, not consultation, there is a distinct difference between the two) which clearly indicated that the cable car was to travel through the PSZ.

The extent of the PSZ (albeit different to the most recently published map) had also been indicated in predictive maps in the London City Airport expansion application, so there is really little excuse for the PSZ and the associated risks not to have been fully considered as required by the DfT circular and policy.

What is even more surprising is that it is very hard to find where the PSZ has been properly addressed at all in the Cable Car application process and three authorities went ahead and approved it 2 weeks ago. It is that which appears to have raised enough concerns from Friends of the Earth and a local Tower Hamlets resident to challenge this approval, both of whom we are assured fully support a cable car, but not at the expense of the safety of those on the ground and passengers.

The latest development in this sorry saga is the release of a wake turbulence report from London City Airport (more to follow on this in the coming days!). The cable car not only sits in the PSZ, it also sits in the wake turbulence path as modelled by Halcrow. At the Greenwich Planning meeting it was stated that "the applicant has been advised by London City Airport that wake turbulence will not be a significant issue". Considering the reports indicate that there have been two incidents of wake turbulence damage recorded (considerable damage to a roof of a building in one) and it appears these have been so since the introduction of larger jets, it seems that the focus should be on the word 'significant'. Wake turbulence is heard 3-4 times a week at the end of the runway, and cannot be ruled out as not a risk to the cable car system at all - hence the use of the word 'significant' no doubt! We suspect that most passengers in the cable car would not wish to be caught up in a wake turbulence vortex, not unless they were expecting a white knuckle ride across the Thames.

To illustrate the impact of wake turbulence on the ground, let alone to a cable car, this may assist: "In the late 1970s I was driving north on I-5, passing the end of SAN Lindbergh Field. A Delta L-1011 was just touching down on 27 and I noticed that a palm tree in the median of the freeway was flailing wildly. A moment later the vortex hit me. It almost rolled my VW bus over." More documentation of just how serious it can be read here and here.

We will be posting a lot more on wake turbulence, what it is and what residents experience in a wake turbulence attack in the coming days.

Now objections have been submitted to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and he has been requested to call the application in on safety grounds. Boris is going to have to deal with just one of the consequences of his support for London City Airport expansion now, how untimely that it should come so soon!

We are just struck by how the PSZ suddenly became less important and one that apparently local authorities can afford not to fully consider to protect the safety of individuals around airports.

Greenwich Council Planning - PSZ? 'I know nothing'

During the Christmas holiday, the team here at FTF were made aware of the Notification of the change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone. This change was on the cards as each time London City Airport demands more flights and bigger planes the public safety zone enlarges to take account of increased risk in the nearest landing and taking off areas at each end of the runway.

The Civil Aviation Authority are now responsible for the administration of the Public Safety Zone. The Department for Transport write the circular on the PSZ, and the local authority in which the PSZ sits is the authority responsible for ensuring that the numbers of people in the PSZ is ideally reduced over the years, and that no new buildings or structures are allowed to be built which would increase the numbers of people in the area. But considering that Greenwich and Newham Councils have just approved around an estimated 2,500 people an hour travelling on a cable car which goes straight through the PSZ, and that Greenwich Council claimed that the none of the cable car travelled through the PSZ then it makes you wonder if they are simply incompetent or like to water down the interpretation of the safety rules when it suits them. The councils and Transport for London may wish to consider the Cavalese Cable Car disaster in 1998 to focus their minds on why it might not be a good idea to put a cable car through the Public Safety Zone of London City Airport.

So the indication is that Greenwich has little regard to the PSZ, it certainly didn't worry about it when it supported expansion and by doing so immediately put thousands of properties in Greenwich in the noise contour, and double figures of homes in the crash zone. So how were residents in those areas to know that they were going to find themselves in those areas? Unless residents read through page upon page of the planning application for expansion or had found us nobody indicated to them how they would be affected. None were told to expect to have their windows sealed up and ventilation installed, none were told in advance that their properties were going to be in the PSZ crash zone. That is a scandal in itself.

However the administration of the PSZ is in good hands with the Civil Aviation Authority, but no matter how much work the CAA do, it cannot do the work of the local council.

In mid December the CAA called Greenwich Council Planning's head Steve Pallet and advised them of the notification of change to the PSZ and requested that there be an area where residents could look at the PSZ map in the council office, in addition 35 letters were sent out by the CAA to the dwellings that now fall into the PSZ. We are advised that Steve Pallet of Greenwich confirmed that there was an area where the map could be viewed from. Greenwich were advised that the items were being posted to them and they were duly posted on 20th December 2010.

FTF were made aware of the PSZ notification on 4 January, and noticed that Greenwich Council were listed in the document as having the map to view and this being within a set consultation/notification period. On 5 January FTF called Greenwich Council Planning to arrange to view the map and were advised that they knew nothing about it, that the planning officer was away on holiday for the week and that only he would be able to deal with it. FTF was told to call back a week later but decided to email Steve Pallet the link to the document and highlight that the map should be available during the whole of the consultation period, not just when his planning officer returned from holiday. Greenwich Council's Steve Pallet made no attempt to respond to the email.

By Thursday 27 January FTF were concerned that Greenwich had made no contact in response to the email or phone call so we made contact with the Civil Aviation Authority and then Greenwich Council once again.

Greenwich Council claim to have never received the information in the post, claiming it may have been lost in the weather conditions. FTF raised concerns with the CAA that residents may not have received notifications and had not had access to the PSZ map and asked if they would consider extending the consultation/notification period. The CAA responded by leading by example and confirmed they had re-posted not only the documents to Greenwich Council but also to all the 35 dwellings affected and had extended the notification period, essentially starting the whole process from scratch.

In our opinion the Civil Aviation Authority went the extra mile to ensure this notification was flagged up to the planning department in mid December. Few organisations would call ahead of actually sending the paperwork through and ensuring that the map would be available to view. We'd like to thank Kate at the CAA for being so responsive to our communication and efficient in dealing with the issue as unlike Greenwich Council, concerns were raised, addressed and the practicals were all completed in just one day.

What concerns us is that Steve Pallet was asked about the availability of the PSZ map on 5 January 2011, and now that we know he was called by the CAA in mid December you would have thought that his department would have checked to see if the documents had arrived, and if not followed up with the CAA. But no, Steve sat on the email and no action was taken at all until FTF once again chased the document on 27 January. In 3 weeks Greenwich Council had made no attempt not only to contact FTF but also to call the CAA to enquire about the PSZ information that Steve Pallet had been told was to be with him in days after the phone call of 20 December 2010. If we hadn't of chased this, Greenwich clearly would have made no effort to contact the CAA to enquire the whereabouts, and in fact never did. It was the CAA who made the contact. Residents in the Greenwich PSZ could have found themselves yet again let down by Greenwich Planning.

The council have been consistently sloppy and careless over anything to do with London City Airport which affects land/properties/residents in Greenwich from day one, they had to be chased to respond to the original airport planning application for expansion (when a resident called 2 days before the deadline the planning officer said the consultation pack was on the floor and he hadn't looked at it, never mind that no residents in Greenwich at that time had been consulted directly. FTF were solely responsible for ensuring that each household in the Thamesmead Moorings area (the area in the crash and noise zone) of Greenwich received a consultation letter on the expansion from Newham Council. We also had to chase Greenwich on responding to the airports noise action plan.

Could Greenwich Council systematically fail the residents in the most affected areas from London City Airport any more than they have done for the past 3 years? We think not.

The Notification of Change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone notification period now runs until 14 March and is open to comments which are to be submitted to the CAA. The PSZ map affecting West Thamesmead, SE28 is now on display at Greenwich Council Planning Department, Crown Building, 48 Woolwich New Road, Woolwich, SE18 6HO.

The Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone) is getting bigger - will it cover your home?

The Civil Aviation Authority has submitted a proposal to revise the public safety zone (PSZ) at London City Airport. The proposal can be seen here and most importantly maps are included so that you will be able to see if your property is currently or will soon be in the PSZ crash zone. Organisations and residents who will be affected are invited to respond. The closing date for submissions is the 2nd February.

More information about what a PSZ is can be found here. Long term followers of ours will be aware that we have raised multiple concerns about the PSZ and consultation procedures in the past, here, here, here and we are yet again dissapointed that it appears that the very people this change will affect have not been consulted and will be completely unaware of this proposal. Greenwich Council appear to have made no effort at all to ensure that the areas affected are kept informed by those responsible.

As a general view of the PSZ map the only residential properties covered by the PSZ are in:

West Thamesmead, Greenwich, SE28 therefore if you live in this area this is of particular importance to you.

No properties appear to be covered by the PSZ in Newham.

If you wish to respond to the CAA proposals and require assistance to do so please email: fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk and we will do all we can to assist.

London City Airport - Increased Pollution in Crash Zone

London City Airport claims in it's own Masterplan that: "The future expansion in aircraft movements, combined with the changes in aircraft and their engines, will increase NOx emissions mainly at the runway and Public Safety Zones [crash zone] away from residential areas"....

Is that why the only residential properties that would be covered by the crash zone which are in Greenwich were not initially consulted (and in fact we don't even know if they have been yet)?

What is even more curious, is that London City Airport were more than well aware of the Gallions Reach Urban Village developments in LB Greenwich, and how much the expansion would enlarge the crash zone over the area. So why do they claim that this increase in harmful NOx emissions would be away from residential areas? They knew that the crash zone would be covering 100s of properties in the area, and 1000s of residents.

So what, you may think? Well NOx is dangerous to humans - it can make you very ill, and in fact can worsen asthma, respiratory diseases and even kill you:

'NO_x react with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis it may also aggravate existing heart disease.

NO_x react with volatile organic compounds in the presence of heat and sunlight to form Ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. Millions of Americans live in areas that do not meet the health standards for ozone.

NO_x also readily react with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations.'

So that's all very healthy for the residents in the crash zone in Gallions Reach Urban Village, West Thamesmead, Greenwich then!

So how much do the effects of NOx cost to the National Health System? Well according to Newham PCT health impact study they didn't seem to think there were any bad effects at all, or at the most, they were minimal. Is death minimal? Strange that, because as part of the NHS you would have thought they would have considered the health impact of the expansion of flights, and the cost of the impact on health to the NHS. Not only was the report weak, it failed to mention that Newham had the highest levels of mortality in under 30s in the UK from asthma (and Newham are even working with AsthmaUK on this issue right now, so you can't say they forgot) and failed to flag up any connections between pollution and respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, deaths in London due to air pollution, and the effect of excessive noise on the development on children. As for NOx directly related illnesses, it seems they've forgotten to address those!

Curious indeed! You may be interested to know that Richard Gooding CEO of London City Airport is on the board of the Newham University Hospital Trust(however his photo and reference to him has mysteriously disappeared - we'll be asking the Trust to confirm if he is still a member of the board). He's certainly listed as a stakeholder, as is his friend and fanzine editor Colin Grainger from the biased reporting Newham Recorder. No conflict of interest there then!

West Thamesmead Residents Monitored by Police Helicopter

Two Thamesmead residents have just reported to us that they have been monitored by a Police Helicopter after taking photographs (such as the one above) in a residential development, in which they live, by the river at West Thamesmead

The helicopter was spotted by the residents around 10 minutes into them taking photographs of the public safety zone area, planes passing and the noise contour areas in Gallions Reach Urban Residential Village, West Thamesmead, Greenwich. The photos were being taken as part of a project to highlight how ignored the area has been by Newham, Greenwich and Hazel Blears, and how it will be blighted by further expansion, and yet 99% will not be entitled to any noise mitigation whatsoever.

The area has now finally been revealed by London City Airport to be affected by 57db and 60db average noise levels - this is prior to the 50% increase in flights. The area is also going to be blanketed by the crash zone - putting 100s of homes in the area where the Department for Transport regard the risk to human life from an aviation incident higher than other areas. Yes, this is the area in which John Prescott visited and hailed it as a beacon example of the new Thames Gateway housing just 3 years ago. The Department for Communities and Local Government used to have the area listed on their website, until it courted negative press, and suddenly all reference was removed.

The residents ascended a man made hill called 'Gallions Hill' which has a panoramic view of South East London. It was as they took in the view from the top of the hill that the Police helicopter arrived above them, hovering.

Now we are not aware that it is an offence for residents to walk, nor take photographs of their local area - or IS IT? Are residents in West Thamesmead to assume that they have lost their freedom to walk and take photographs in the area in which they live?

Nice to see that the Met are spending their resources so wisely in such difficult economic times. We wonder can we assume the cost of sending out the helicopter to monitor local residents in their own neighbourhood is added to the 5 million security bill that City Airport have passed to London Taxpayers over the past 2 years? Or will it be an additional cost?

As it happens the rain saw off the residents, but they also tell us that once they had arrived back home, within about 20 minutes a Police car was seen cruising up the riverside access drive.

We'll be uploading a short video of the Police helicopter shortly, and linking the most recently available noise contours.

London City Airport & Newham: How do you trim down a Public Safety Zone?

By ignoring the model that the Department of Transport provides to calculate it of course!

The public safety zone* maps (see definition of PSZ below) which LCA submitted to the London Borough of Newham appear not to have been drawn up using the required model provided by the Department of Transport. This gives the effect of making the public safety zone areas smaller than they should be and covering less households, and also perhaps, schools and other sensitive places - such as prospective bridges. Is this simply yet another attempt to bury the bad news so they can get those extra flights out - at any cost??

We can't think why they would ignore the DfT model to draw up the Public Safety Zones with the result in making them smaller? Even stranger that LB Newham didn't enforce that DfTs model was used in the process of the PSZ mapping by the consultants employed by LCA.

But it's not strange at all...it is just the continuing saga of LCA and Newham's disingenous behaviour throughout the whole of the consultation and application to expand LCA flights to 120,000 this year and another 50% next year, taking them up to 176,000 per year.

*What is a 'Public Safety Zone'? It is an area which is a long triangular shape at each end of any runway which is deemed at more risk of being affected by an air traffic incident upon take off or landing. The triangular shape widens and lengthens in accordance to the type, and number, of planes operating out of the airport.

Guidelines are set by the Department of Transport in how this area should be calculated and mapped out and where homes, traffic etc should not occupy the area at all, or in small numbers. New buildings are not allowed to be built in the PSZ unless planning approval was given before the PSZ was identified, current homes of which residents will find themselves being covered by the PSZ map are simply told to live with the risk. Despite the guidelines being set by the DfT it is the responsibility of the local council to apply them.

PSZ Enquiries: Department for Transport: 020 7944 8300 - Airports Section.
Document: free to download.

Are LCA Dicing With The Communities Safety?

Residents have been reporting into us this morning of the appalling weather conditions and alarming attempts of flights to land and take off.

With strong cross winds around London City Airport's runway - 4 flights were forced to abort landing in just 30 minutes of observation. Planes were visibly struggling at some height before approaching the runway with the cross winds.

Some were just feet above the runway and were felt to be at risk of over running the runway by observers - before the aircraft had to abort the landing and struggle to gain height over the A117 Woolwich Manor Way, with landing gear still visible.

Observers felt that they were about to witness an incident on more than one occasion and questioned 'why were LCA still allowing flights to take off and land in such conditions, wouldn't it have been better to have re-routed them to another airport if landing was proving so difficult'? 'Who takes that decision to allow flights to continue to land and take off in such dangerous conditions - and who are they accountable to'? the resident asked us. We suspect there may have been some very startled drivers on that road this morning, as well as startled air passengers.

It reminds us that there are a lot of people in the close vicinity of LCA and the public safety zone, and they were alarmed and scared by these sights. It brings home the reality of the dangers to the community of the airports close proximity to such high density residential areas, and busy roads and the difficult weather conditions that are experienced in the area. The strong winds are even stated in planning documents for housing and developers are often required to plant trees to help create some protection from wind in the exposed areas of East and South East London's former marshlands. LCA's location is clearly not a suitable place to expand flights at all and with 50% more flights (100% more flights in their dreams) - especially on days like today, the risk is too high to the safety of the surrounding communities.

Coming Soon: Videos of this mornings aborted and alarming landings.

And they want 176,000 flights per year?

This video was taken on January 17th of a Swiss Air jet getting into difficulty on landing at LCA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5prz1Ae5QM

The safety of flying in 176,000 jets annually onto this stolport runway is questionable. Cross winds, fog and an incredibly exposed landscape which coupled with a short runway, 5.5 take off due to high buildings are a clear recipe for disaster.

You can see some comments about this incident on the PPRuNe Forums.

We must say that we really feel for those passengers who were on that jet - that must have been a terrifying experience.

We know that London City Airport's real plan in the future is to get rid of a load of the short haul flights and concentrate on the Category A jets flying transatlantic routes with BA et all and their Boeing A318s. After all, Richard Gooding is on the record saying he's got to make lots of money for Credit Suisse, AIG and GE and he intends to compete with Heathrow and Gatwick. How cosy.

If LCA could get a 737 in they would try...and with the current lack of noise management being applied by LB Newham and the airport - we are sure they could pull some murky, inaccurate figures out from the past which might allow it, in those 'strict noise management conditions' they keep mentioning but few of us ever see applied!!

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