FTF at Oxfam's Climate Question Time - Newham

At the Newham Oxfam Climate Question Time: Stephen Timms MP, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was very keen on aviation growth....whilst making it clear that us mere mortals have so many ways in which we can reduce our
emissions! Strangely for a Financial Secretary to the Treasury , there was NO mention of what BUSINESS could do to help with climate change, the local environment and the required reduction in emissions: that is until that issue was raised in relation to aviation by a member of the audience.

Timms is very keen on allowing the rich (the richly subsidised and pocketing aviation industry in particular) to trade in carbon credits - the European Emissions Trading Scheme. This is the answer to all the climate issues of the world, well that's what he believes. We'd like him to review that after what he heard at Wednesday's meeting.

Apparently the tax that will be collected from the scheme would be of great benefit when government throw a brown paper bag of notes over to areas such as flooded Bangladesh, after the damage from climate change has already occurred of course. Timms referred this to 'environmental mitigation' . Mitigation in Newham - it's put into policy and planning documents but rarely put into practice for the benefit of it's residents.

Personally, we suspect this money wouldn't be any more use at that point, in terms of 'mitigation', than a few sandbags being handed out once everything has already been lost and washed away. It was pointed out that this was simply allowing the rich to pay to pollute the poor, that it was selfish and an irresponsible policy unless the government was willing to halt growing emissions, from the aviation industry for example. Otherwise surely it was a case of continuing to allow the annual 3,000 premature deaths in London and the floods in Bangladesh to further deteriorate, and to throw money at those groups after they suffer, and lives are lost, whilst government and big businesses continued 'business as usual' wasn't it? This surely at the very least is nothing more than patronising, devalues the worth of individuals, and once again values money above all other factors?

Public transport, poverty and car use in Newham was also raised. There's a lot of problems with transport and inequalities in Newham. Timms displaying just how out of touch he is with residents in his borough, claimed that there had been huge transport improvements: DLR (paid for by taxpayers) and Eurostar..and that buses had improved. DLR and Eurostar are a luxury to residents in one of the most socially deprived boroughs in London.

A lady on the bus told us that she couldn't afford/nor was it practical to travel by tube/DLR to her job in EC1.She spends almost 4 hours a day travelling into the city for her minimum wage. It takes so long as the bus often simply doesn't turn up so she has to allow extra time, lots of extra time. Her 4 children and husband are used to her being out 12 hours a day, but are not happy about it and worry about her safety. We've heard from more than one MP say they wouldn't use public transport/or go out alone in the evening because of concern for their personal safety. Unfortunately most residents don't have employers (yes, us the taxpayers) who will pay for them to stay over in hotels, or perhaps pay for them to travel by taxis so they don't have to face those scary, and long commutes over short distances to and from work. It's no wonder so many people struggle to run cars to get around, but they are the very people who government appear to be looking to for reducing emissions whilst big business carries on increasing theirs. These issues clearly all provide barriers to employment, and a way out of poverty and pollution in Newham, but they are certainly not ones that the local politicians seem to grasp.

But don't worry, residents might not be able to afford to get to work in a time efficient way, or have the time to travel to work for 4 hours a day because of family responsibilities...BUT there are more flights for the rich, who don't live in Newham, don't contribute to Newham but whom DO use London City Airport and whom leave rather a lot of pollution behind for the less privileged to breathe.

It was interesting that Timms started his initial answer to all these points that 'the answer is not to shut London City Airport' (trebles all round for that statement in the airport hospitality room for Timms next time he visits). Strangely the audience member who posed the questions had not even made such a suggestion that the airport should close, but instead highlighted the importance of 'balanced decisions, taking all issues into account, but certainly not allowing the airport to expand''. .

But Timms is banking on biofuels for aviation (he failed to mention about the mass de-forestation and food crops declining as a result of the current poorly planned quest for unsustainable biofuels though). Unfortunately you couldn't help but feel that banking might be the operative word, yes governments banking that money all the way to the bank, whilst further damaging our environment, communities and seeing premature deaths continue to rise in London. In fact Newham even knows a bit about biofuels as it's also approved a more than controversial biofuel plant which is alleged will pour yet more harmful emissions and asthma inducing pollutants into the already over polluted air in East London.

Timms, although we are sure he is an exceptionally personable individual is sorely misguided and wrong. He simply misses the issues that are right beneath his nose in his own constituency, let alone globally. Perhaps this was apparent in his inability to answer the questions that were put to him.

Thanks to Oxfam for their great work in encouraging debate in communities and bringing the issues to a local level and also to the two NGO panel members invited by Oxfam: Sabino Miranda of the Climate Change Youth Development Trust and Monjural from the European Action Group on Climate Change in Bangladesh. These groups and individuals are carrying out such valuable grass roots work, building communities and building understanding.

A Case of The Kellaways

Back in April 2008, Newham residents were told by Stephen Timm's MP and Councillor Alec Kellaway(also member of the London City Airport Consultative Committee) the following:

"Alec said extra employment would be a deciding factor but not at any cost, & what we need is anything that can counter this". For example, when the LCA are not abiding by its operating procedures, Extra noise levels, from noisier flights, especially the noisy private jets (numbers of these are supposed to be limited), flights out of hours, & so called emergency flights (they are only allowed to claim a cetain amount). They claim to be a good neighbour, with good liaisons with locals, & doing lots for the community, does anyone have any evidence of this?"

Well, as you all know, London City Airport have behaved appallingly towards residents and they have completely ignored many of the conditions in the Section 106 which have resulted to the detriment to residents. The fact that residents who have lived in an area for over 40 years have to ask others what the airport has been doing for the community says it all - nothing.

So Cllr Kellaway and Stephen Timms MP were passed this information - after all that is what they requested from the residents. What is more, Newham have even admitted the failings of the their own ability to enforce, and of their 'frustration' with London City Airport to follow the legally set conditions upon which they are required to operate.So what are they going to do with the evidence? Or was this simply an excercise they hoped residents would fail in?

Councillor Kellaway was clearly suffering from amnesia when speaking to the residents or was he just being rather two faced and hypocrital with them about 'the airport should not expand at any cost' . Why do we say this?

Of the three wards nearest to the airport, NOT ONE councillor has made a represenation on behalf of their constituents in regard to the London City Airport expansion application: THAT IS OF COURSE EXCEPT COUNCILLOR KELLAWAY - IN A PRIVATE CAPACITY HE SUBMITTED A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPANSION (this can be viewed at Newham Planning).

So we cannot help but question why Councillor Kellaway would want to be so disingenous to his constituents and send them on evidence finding missions when all along he had not told them that he had sent a letter of support to Newham?

Here's a few freebies that Cllr Kellaway has received from the LCACC and LCA:

03/07/2007 - London City Airport Consultative Committee, 10th Anniversary Reception. Name of Donor: London City Airport Consultative Committee (Masterplan time!)

12/07/2007 - London City Airport Consultative Committee Annual Familiarisation Trip to Edinburgh incorp. coach trip, and lunch; Name of Donor: London City Airport Consultative Committee. (Application time!)

27/05/2008 - Complimentary Gift Bag; Name of Donor: Reception on boat by City Airport to celebrate 20 years of operation, City Airport, Royal Docks, E16

And a full list of councillors who have not been bothered to do what they are paid to do, represent the residents.

• Canning Town South (Councillors Craig, Ademolake and Stafford)
• Custom House (Councillors Butler, Holland and McCauley)
• Beckton (Councillors Bowden, Chaudhury
• Royal Docks: (Councillors McAlmont, Murphy and Tucker)

And they wonder why residents have no faith in them.

The Great Web Of Deception

There are a lot of things about this application that have been uncovered during the last 9 months or so. Most of all it is the level of deception that the community have been fed in the absence of real facts, and accurate information that has been the most concerning.

1. Residents are still being told - ''noise mitigation will be offered to all households in the noise contours to deal with the increased noise levels".

This is a really good one to get rid of objecting residents, who haven't seen or had time to read the details of the noise mitigation programme, and whose main concern are the noise levels.

There's two problems with this: firstly the noise contours are based on estimates, secondly any home built of given planning permission after 1997 is not eligible for assistance to sound insulation. You may be offered motorised ventilation simply because opening your windows will be unbearable with the level of noise from jets - but this will not reduce the noise experienced from 50% more planes at intervals of 90seconds!

2. Noise contours - residents have been led to believe that the current noise contours are only estimated for the past year.

Estimated noise contours are a real money saver for London City Airport (think of all those properties which may be eligible for noise mitigation for the past 7 years but haven't been identified as 'eligible'!)and rather helpful when you want to get an application through to expand to a major airport, in the middle of a residential area when the noise levels really matter.

As you will know if you read this blog they have been estimated for over 6 years. Why? Because LCA and Newham don't care and appear to have had some sort of amnesia with regards to the Section 106 requirements since the document was written. But don't worry, a nice, new shiny section 106 with a 50% increase in flights will make everything much, much better, so we are told!

3. Employment Figures - the great myth

Jobs, jobs, jobs - a great tool to try and bury the outweighing negatives to any community! After all who would dare stand up and say no to more 'estimated' jobs? Even if they are just words in the quest to get approval to make loadsamoney, even if it does mean an additional 46,000 people will have to live in sealed up homes, children's development will be affected, and cardiovascular conditions continue to soar in Newham and Greenwich in the areas most affected by the noise levels? Stephen Timm's is right behind on the job issue, shame his equivalent in health isn't right behind the people on the health impacts! Still the price put on the head of a resident, appears to be far less value than that of business - check out the PSZ guidance to see this in practice! But we are sure with Newham's excellent track record in enforcement they will of course follow up and independently check the validity of such job growth claims!!

The airport never, ever quotes that it directly employs just over 400 people. Instead it likes to think it can isolate other job growth in the area and take all the credit for it themselves.

So just over 400 jobs soon become 2000 jobs 'created' but they consistently omit in identifying the distinction between the two categories. They could give lessons on how to purposely mislead the reader - and we thought it was all ''open and honest''! When members of the LCACC also start to express their unhappiness with the figures and projections of job growth, well that says everything.

Itsy, bitsy, spider....

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.

Stephen Timms Leads Residents Up The Garden Path

It's always nice to know when there is a local MP who really cares about his constituents. And there are many of them, who REALLY DO CARE. However we can't say the same for Stephen Timms.

Stephen Timms has been approached by residents for some months now, he's ignored some, deleted their emails and not responded to others who he appears not to like the questions they present.

However Stephen did meet with some residents and he asked them to provide evidence that London City Airport has not met its Section 106 requirements regarding operations. A whole list of issues was then collected from residents - about 2 pages long. Did Stephen Timms respond to this? No.

Did Stephen Timms ask what was happening when it was revealed that the airport had broken the section 106 agreement by not taking any noise measurements for 7 years? No

So Stephen Timms seems to like to give his local residents who are most affected by the threat of the flight expansion the runaround, just for the fun of it perhaps. Why else would you ask for the evidence, it is then provided, as hard as, and then not do anything with it?

He did however manage to elicit a response from LCAs Richard Gooding, which revealed that LCA did not know how many Newham residents they employed - yet another failed requirement of the Section 106 - did he do anything about that? No.

But what Stephen Timms did do was talk to the Newham Recorder this week , not to question the quality of the consultation, or the quality of the data provided in LCAs application to expand, oh no nothing as helpful to residents as that. We'd just like to see the evidence of any statistics he quotes. Perhaps he would also like to see if he can get some accurate noise contours for his constituents at the same time?

We're sure Newham voters really feel valued and listened to by Stephen Timms. Still big business is far, far more important isn't it?