They told us to read the Whitepaper.....

An individual (who claims to be an 'airport employee'), recently referred objectors to London City Airports plan for flight expansion, to the Aviation White Paper in a bid to justify their position on expanding noise and other pollution over vast residential areas. Now that is really the ostrich effect.

It seems objectors are nothing but a nuisance and deserve what they get in their view! Funny that. Really, why should we all expect to be able to have our windows open or have a bit of peace between flight batches - after all we are only ordinary people, paying taxes...of which some pays London City Airports annual security bill of £7million!

We thought that perhaps they should have themselves looked at the overwhelming theme of the responses to the aviation whitepaper consultation - it makes heartwarming reading even though it doesn't mention LCA. Whoops, sorry we forgot ....residents responses don't count...do they? That is clearly why so little consultation occurred in East and South East London.

And just to pre-empt the industries response of the data being historical: it's more recent than any of the noise readings that have come out of LCA for 7 years so this data should be positively current!

Evidence Supporting Airport Expansion is Flawed

Flaws abound it seems in the quest for aviation expansion and it appears to be endemic across the sector, could this be simply because the truth is too painful and damaging? Seems like it's time to bin it and start all over again with something that could be regarded as remotely reliable. It's the call for 'real facts' that keeps emerging, just as it does for the objectors to LCA's application to expand.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/evidence-supporting-airport-expansion-is-flawed-says-government-adviser-831508.html

For London City Airport, the flaws look to be on their inability to collect actual noise data for 7 years, and instead estimate figures and effects on the communities in their application to expand. But lets not forget their 'economic benefit' claims which are equally as shaky and hard to see, even after 20 years of operating. Of course there's that little issue of wider environmental pollution that they had their head buried in the sand over for a time, until pressed to address their contribution to pollution by other objectors. We should remind you that the GLA objected to LCA expansion on the lack of consideration of the full impacts on the environment and communities - FTF are clearly not alone in their concerns.

It seems we can find a lot of common themes, which we have raised as concerns, in the following article, written by our colleague from HACAN - John Stewart:


Will the Government listen this time round? Its own adviser, the Sustainable Development Commission, is calling for a moratorium on airport expansion until stronger economic evidence is produced and until there is greater certainty about the level of emissions that will result.

This comes on top of calls from many other sources for a rethink. Bob Ayling, the former chief executive of British Airways, says the plans to expand Heathrow do not add up in economic terms. All the opposition parties are against the expansion plans for Heathrow as they stand.
The Government is on incredibly shaky ground in claiming that the expansion can go ahead within the agreed emissions levels, and its economic claims for expansion are equally weak.
A report produced by the independent Dutch consultancy CE Delft found that while Heathrow has been important to the UK in financial terms, its expansion would have a negligible effect on the economy because businesses are coming to London anyway.

The CE Delft report challenged the economic arguments of the Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly, and others that, if Heathrow were not expanded, businesses would go to other European cities where airports are expanding, particularly Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris.
The report found there was little evidence that businesses would relocate because of the other attractions of London: it is a thriving financial centre with a relatively low tax economy compared with other European countries.

The expansion of Heathrow may well be in theinterests of BA and BAA,but that is not the same as saying it is essential for the health of the wider economy. Businesses outside the aviation industry say they are not desperate for a bigger Heathrow: where they are losing money is where thechief executives of top companies are held up for hours, and that's what they want BAA and the Government to sort out.

It is highly significant that the report challenges the Government so directly on emissions. The report's call on the Government to quantify the emissions from its expansion programme for aviation comes close to being a damning indictment of the Government's claims that it can go ahead and still meet the UK's emissions targets.

It is now time for the Government to address the recommendations in this report and commission a truly independent study into the economic case for its expansion plans for Heathrow and elsewhere. Equally, an independent study should be commissioned into the real impact of expansion on noise, air pollution and emissions. Until that is done, it makes no sense at all to go ahead with this programme of aggressive expansion of aviation. What we need is a moratorium on aviation expansion until we have the real facts.

John Stewart is chairman of the campaign group Hacan Clear Skies

A Case of Double Standards - LCA and Crossrail

Noise, vibration, dust and other environmental effects were top of the list of concerns for......now you think we are going to say residents don't you?

In fact, they were the stated concerns of London City Airport in their Petition regarding the construction and operation of Crossrail.

It seems LCA were more than happy to use the Human Rights Act and their concerns for the environment to protect themselves and their 'most demanding and high profile of customers' who use the Jet Centre, but not when it comes to residents. But what is most evident is that they certainly do not practice what they preach.

The document, passed to us by fellow objectors, when shown to residents has been greeted with a ' you are joking'? Sadly we are not, well they were not: the double standards applied by the airport, (yes the one that can't measure it's own noise levels for 7 years, and as stated by other commentators has not offered the full environmental impact of expansion), are truly amazing.

It's just a shame that some of the things they ask for, they seem utterly incompetent of carrying out themselves within their own business for the well being of the community, even though they are required to do so under the Section 106 Agreement issued by the London Borough of Newham. We could liken that to a 'specific code of practice' that they demand in the petition - but one that LCA have shown little regard for themselves if recent findings are anything to go by.

But cheer up - it looks like LCA want cash for noise/inconvenience....so surely residents would be entitled to the same for the inconvenience, noise, dust and vibration and the significant loss of value on their properties (yes we have some data from another airport for evidence that expansion does affect property prices) from LCA activities up till now: get your claim forms and Human Rights Lawyers contacts for the ready!

The document quotes:

31."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 and the implications that these will have for employees and passsengers". "By its nature, the Jet Centre operation is used by the most demanding and high profile of customers who expect high standards of service". "The adverse effects of construction works may compromise such standards and result in a decline in the usage of the Jet Centre, causing Your Petitioner significant financial loss". " Your Petititioner 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 such financial loss".

34. "Your petitioner is also extremely concerned by the impacts on the Jet Centre from the operational railway". "In particular, Your Petitioner is apprehensive about the potential noise and vibraition effects of running trains in the tunnel that passes underneath the Airport and the implications for the sensitive environment of the passenger facilities at the Jet Centre"."Insufficient data is in the Environmental Statement accompanying the Bill to enable a proper assessment of the likely impacts of these operational effects. "Your Petitioner considers that there is inadequate information regarding the assumptions used in the assessment for train speed, track fixing, and track foundations". "Your Petitioner submits that the Promoter should be required to incorporate all reasonably available mitigation measures including track-laying and foundation techniques in order to ensure the vibration and noise effects of operating trains are minimised".

Community Impact
39. Your Petitioner is also greatly concerned by the wider noise,dust, vibration and disturbance 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 to specific code of construction practice, which is fully consulted upon with the local community in order to ensure the minimum impact on residents and businesses.

Human Rights

59. Your Petitioner submits that in its current form and without further amendment or provision as sought by Your Petitioner, the Bill is inocompatible with the right of Your Petitioner peacefully to enjoy its property and to 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 and fails to provide Your Petitioner with sufficient right of participation in future determinations of Your Petitioner's rights........

PRESS RELEASE: London City Airport Could Be Operating Illegally

London City Airport (LCA) could be operating illegally whilst Newham Council appear to take no action, but do consider LCA’s planning application to expand flights by 50% to 120,000 per year.

LCA have failed to submit actual noise readings of aircraft operations since the year 2000, instead using historical figures and manufacturers details in their application for more flights.

Fight the Flights [1], the group that is opposing the expansion of flights from London City Airport have seen documents which indicate that London City Airport could have been operating illegally since the year 2000.

The documents [2] indicate a clear breach of the Section 106 Agreement by London City Airport. The Agreement requires the airport to provide annual ‘actual’ noise measurements for the purpose of aircraft categorisation [3] and noise factored movements. Noise contours are also based on this data.

The last set of actual noise readings taken at the airport which were considered to be reliable and valid were for the year 1999-2000 [4].

London City Airport has submitted a planning application to the London Borough of Newham due to be considered on the 4th June 2008 [5] to increase flights by 50% based on estimates of noise levels from the historical and manufacturers information of the aircraft and which are therefore unreliable. Whilst the use of larger, noisier jets has increased considerably over the past few years, current and future noise increases may be even higher than estimated.

It may be the case that the current noise factored movements are already exceeding the levels laid down in the Section 106 Agreement. This may mean that more flights may currently be operating out of the airport than are allowed.

It appears that in 7 years London City Airport has not taken its responsibility in respect of noise monitoring at all seriously.

The London Borough of Newham appear to have taken no action against the airport to enforce the Section 106 Agreement, in regard to noise measurement, to the detriment of the communities that live in the areas surrounding the airport.

Even on the estimates provided by the London City Airport, there will be an increase in noise contours of 50% with residences in the 57db contour increasing from 3,300 to 11,300 with proposed developments and residences in the 63dB contour are set to increase from 80 to 3100 with proposed developments, if expansion goes ahead. The airport claims, on the current noise estimates that “no dwellings become exposed to noise levels of 69db or more under the proposals” (see page 8 of the airport’s April 08 revised non-technical summary).

Bickerdike Allen Partners presented an eight year review of LCY departure noise levels in Appendix 1 of the 2005-2006 categorisation report. This was based on manufacturers information and the noise readings from 1999-2000. Aircraft operating out of LCA should not be louder than 94.5PNdb (as determined in the Section 106 Agreement) and yet the document indicates at least one breach of this rule.

London City Airport has employed the controversial Hill & Knowlton PR company to ‘push’ the expansion plans through. Since then a “member of the family at London City Airport” whose “job is to promote that success through the power of PR” since set up a blog [6] which promotes the airport and has attacked several people who have objected to their expansion plans, accusing one MP of ‘propaganda’.

Notes to Editors:

[1] Fight The Flights is a coalition group of residents from across the boroughs who are objecting to the proposed 50% expansion of flights by London City airport. Residents formed the coalition in response to the lack of consultation, and lack of accurate information available on the effects on the community and environment. We work with Friends of The Earth, HACAN Clearskies, the group which is opposing the expansion of Heathrow, and other campaign groups fighting airport expansion.
Fight the Flights: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

[2] In a report by Bickerdike Allen Partners for London City Airport, Annual Categorisation Report 2005-2006 dated 10 July 2007 the following points are clearly made:

"In accordance with London City Airport's original planning permission, aircraft operating at London City Airport are required to be categorised by their departure noise levels, which should fall into one of five noise categories”.
“For the first year of operation with the extended runway (30 March 1992 to 29 March 1993) the aircraft were provisionally categorised on the basis of manufacturer's data.
In all following years however, for approved aircraft operating at London City Airport, the categorisation was to be made with respect to measured data from London City Airport's noise monitoring system.

The latest planning permission, and the related Section 106 Agreement, continues this method of categorisation".

The report goes on to say:

“the current categorisation year (April 2005-March 2006) as for previous years since 2000, LCY have been unable to maintain a gateway pair of NMT’s in regular and continuous use. ....specifically.....NMT 1, 2 and 3.

These difficulties have arisen as a result of construction activities adjacent to the monitor sites and impending development proposals, as well as maintenance issues. This has prevented the acquisition of gateway pair data for the majority of this time."

"It has therefore not been possible to acquire sufficient quantities of reliable noise data to generate annual noise categorisation data during the period 2005 to 20006. During this year, and since 2000, categorisation has been sought predominantly on the basis of historical data as shown in Appendix 1……"

[3]The Section 106 Agreement set as part of the planning approval on London City Airport on it’s last application to expand. The agreement requires the airport to take actual noise readings of departing aircraft on an annual basis so that ‘noise factored movements’ and the categorisation of aircraft can be calculated. The categorisation of aircraft:

“Aircraft types using the Airport shall be placed in categories and allocated noise factors as set out below”,
Category Noise Reference Level PNdb Noise Factor
A 91.6-94.5 1.26
B 88.6-91.5 0.63
C 85.6-88.5 0.31
D 82.6-85.5 0.16
E Less than 82.6 0.08

The categorisation of aircraft directly affects how many flights are allowed in any one day, week, year. The Section 106 Agreement states “….the number of factored movements shall be calculated by multiplying the number of take offs and landings of each aircraft type by the relevant noise factor for an aircraft type….”

[4] Bickerdike Allen Partners categorisation report for 2005 2006 noise monitoring states: “The mean departure noise level for individual aircraft types has therefore been……specifically from data obtained during the 30 March 1999 to March 2000 categorisation year, the last year during which the original noise monitoring system was in operation”

[5] London City Airport submitted a planning application to the London Borough of Newham in August 2007 to expand flights by 50% to 120,000 per year. Documents may be found at:
Reference: 07/01510/VAR London Borough of Newham Planning Applications:
http://pacaps.newham.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_searchform.aspx

[6]London City Airport ‘member of family’ blog: http://prdock.wordpress.com/

Links:
London City Airport Consultative Committee: http://www.lcacc.org/
Hill and Knowlton PR: http://www.hillandknowlton.com/
Newham Council: http://www.blogger.com/www.newham.gov.uk

London City Airport Don't Know How Many Employees are Newham Residents

The Chief Executive of London City Airport has stated that out of just 406 directly employed London City Airport staff - he is apparently unable to say how many are Newham residents! Additionally he appears unwilling to state how many of those 406 employees are part time employees.

Source: Richard Gooding's response in a letter to a 'local' MP.

Well there's a surprise!! Seems a bit strange to base hugely wild claims of spin of how 'the airport' benefits the residents of Newham in employment matters when:

1) they don't know how many Newham residents they employ,

2) Newham residents are not mentioned in their customer statistics on LCACC,

3) they are using such spin in their application to try and bait the council on jobs for 'local' people,

4) section 106 agreement requires them to produce annual statistics of residency of their employees. Another breach of the agreement perhaps??

Just fancy that!