Newham Planning Meeting - Next Week

Bearing in mind that Sunil Sahadaven and the Planning Team at Newham Council have failed to notify those residents who previously objected to the expansion of London City Airport: please find beneath the planning meeting notification.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Application No: 07/01510/VAR
Address: London City Airport, Hartmann Road, Silvertown, London, E16 2PX
Proposal: Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary conditions 13 and 15 of the outline planning permission no.N/82/104 dated 23 May 1985, as previously varied by the Secretary of State on the 26 September 1991 and by the London Borough of Newham on 21 July 1998 and 11 July 2007, to allow up to 120,000 total aircraft movements per annum (number of total movements in 2006 was 79,616) with related modifications to other limits.


The above planning application will be considered at the Council's Development Control Committee scheduled for 8 July 2009 at Newham Town Hall, East Ham, E6.

The case officer has recommended to approve the planning application.

Any member of the public can attend the meeting, which starts at 7:00pm. If you wish to make representations at that Committee you should advise either Joy George or Shirley Fortune (Member Services, Town Hall, East Ham London E6 2RP) in writing by 12 (mid-day) the Monday prior to the Committee meeting. For further advice in regard to this matter you can contact them on 0208 430 3401 or by fax (020 8430 3052).

Yours faithfully,



Sunil Sahadevan

On behalf of JOHN FANNON, Borough Planning Officer

Nitrogen Dioxide Dangerously High at London City Airport

Why do we think London City Airport is making people ill? Because there is evidence out there which supports this:

The Chartered School of Physiotherapists

Over two thirds (16 out of 23) of the airports included in the CSP’s London (City), Southampton study recorded dangerously high levels of nitrogen dioxide – a noxious gas that irritates the airways of the lungs and causes breathing difficulties. The EU says nitrogen dioxide levels need to stay below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air (mcg/m3) to be safe, but airports in Newcastle, Birmingham and London (Heathrow and Gatwick) exceed this recommendation by up to 75 per cent.

Readings at airports in Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Sheffield, Humberside, London (City), Exeter and Gloucester are up to 50 per cent higher than the EU target.

Respiratory physiotherapists say the consequences of being exposed to the gas can be especially severe among people with existing lung conditions, like asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. CSP spokesperson, Professor Grahame Pope, says:

'The effects of airport emissions on air quality and public health are of serious concern to physiotherapists. It’s not just nitrogen dioxide polluting the environment around airports; our study reveals high ozone (see note 4) concentrations at some sites too. There’s no doubt that aircraft contribute to the problem, but it should be noted that cars, buses and taxis ferrying passengers to and from these sites are dominant sources of pollution. With cheap flights making air travel more affordable, several airports want to expand capacity. We would urge the government to consider ways of balancing passenger convenience with improving public health when looking at these proposals.'

Well, the government, nor Newham paid any serious attention to the CSP's request, because unlike the CSP ,they appear not to concern themselves with such matters.

Clearing the Air: The Myth and Reality of Climate Change and Aviation

You may wish to read the excellent report by the European Federation for Transport and Environment...point 3 blows away Peter Simpson's, of British Airways Cityflier, unsubstantiated claims about the 'better for the community' Embraers he is introducing to London City Airport (of course if Peter would like to pass the data over, along with the methodology he used to make such claims, then he knows our email address). In fact the whole report puts into question most of what the aviation lobby uses as it's 'formula' to justify the threat of continued greed not need expansion:

Executive summary:

• in 2000, aviation was responsible for 4 to 9 per cent of
  the climate change impact of global human activity – the
  range reflecting uncertainty surrounding the effect of cirrus
  clouds
  ◗ aviation has by far the greatest climate impact of any transport
  mode, whether measured per passenger kilometre, per
  tonne kilometre, per € spent, or per hour spent
  ◗ today’s passenger aircraft are no more fuel-efficient than
  those that flew half a century ago
  ◗ the importance of aviation for the economy and employment
  is far less than its importance for climate change
  ◗ every segment of the aviation industry including manufacturers,
  airlines and airports is subsidised and enjoys major tax
  exemptions

Section 2 examines some of the policy options under consideration
to combat the climate impact of aviation.
The main conclusions of this section of the report are:

• ◗ regional initiatives, such as those under discussion at EU
  level, provide the best hope for a multi-lateral solution to
  international aviation emissions for the foreseeable future
  
  
• ◗ EU-level action does not affect the competitive position
  of EU airlines compared with their non-EU competitors,
  provided that policies do not discriminate between EU and
  non EU carriers flying the same routes (which is obligatory
  anyway under the Chicago Convention)


• including aviation in the European Emissions Trading System
  (EU ETS) can be a good first step, provided the system is
  designed right additional measures like kerosene taxation and Nitrogen
  Oxide (NOx) emissions charges at airports are not only
  environmentally important but also justified in terms of cost
  effectiveness


• aviation is overwhelmingly an activity of the richest elements
  of society, measures to combat the environmental impact of
  aviation would not adversely impact the poor


• a ‘development tax’ on tickets is a good way to make up
  for the VAT exemption of international air tickets and would
  benefit poor regions, not hurt them

And you may wish to consider the following information against the recent report that 55% of children in the London Borough of Newham live in poverty - after 20 years of the airport running, and it claiming to have brought prosperity to Newham:

More expensive air travel is bad news for the poor.

“Air transport contributes to citizens’ desire for more travel at
democratic prices.”
AEA 2006

REALITY

It’s the rich that fly, even in this era of low-cost
carriers – if aviation paid its true costs we could
help the poor a lot more.

All italicised extracted from:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:430

Pictured above: Cirrus clouds

How's Your Health: Around London City Airport?

Why do we and others want to stop expansion at London City Airport? That little matter of health is rather important us, even if it isn't to LCY (and its supporters) who are allegedly hiding air quality readings from the GMB who accuse them of a toxic terminal!
Well here's some toxic evidence for you:
Health in the areas around the airport:
The Biggest killers in the London Borough of Newham are: in order;

1.Cancer
2.Chronic obstructive pulmonary
3.Stroke
4.Pneumonia
5.COPD
6.Asthma

The 2001 Census reported that 26,000 people (10.5% of total population) in Newham live with a long term limiting illness; including 4,000 under 19, and 12,500 aged 65 and over

Newham has higher than average infant mortality and the gap is widening

Higher than average respiratory diseases

Highest level of mortality rates in under 30s with asthma in the whole country

Higher than average mortality rates from asthma, pneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary (CHC) disease than London and England

Higher than average infant mortality rates: Newham has above average levels for London and England – with the gap widening, not narrowing

Comparative evidence of the connections of these illnesses to aircraft pollution:

Taken from campaign group LEAD: http://www.lead.org.au/Lanv7n3/L73-4.html
“The area heavily contaminated by a light to medium traffic two runway airport is approximately 12 miles around the field and 20 miles or more downwind. A single runway equipped airport with light to medium traffic contaminates an area about 6 miles around the field and 20 downwind”.

Extract of "Airports: Deadly Neighbors" by Charles R. Miller

What kinds of health effects may be occurring to the population in your neighborhood can be seen from a report, dated June 20, 1997 to the Georgetown Crime Prevention and Community Council by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health.

Georgetown is an area of Seattle, and surrounds the King County International Airport (Boeing Field), King County, in turn, surrounds greater Seattle. (The Georgetown Council is a sister organization to AReCO and member of US-CAW (United States Citizens Aviation Watch). When comparing hospitalization rates for Georgetown (Zip Code 98108) to those of King and North King Counties, the following, alarming statistics resulted:

a 57% higher asthma rate
a 28% higher pneumonia/influenza rate
a 26% higher respiratory disease rate
an 83% higher pregnancy complication rate
a 50% higher infant mortality rate
genetic diseases are statistically higher
mortality rates are 48% higher for all causes of death: 57% higher for heart disease, a 36% higher cancer death rate with pneumonia and influenza among the top five leading causes average life expectancy 70.4 years (the same as in many developing nations) compared to Seattle's of 76.0 years.

Can you see any similarities there? It's hard not to see them. Still the aviation industry will keep telling you how clean and green they are, Peter Simpson of City Flyer is one of those who should be answerable to those individuals in the area around London City who are ill from the effect of his business seeking more profits, whilst air limits already exceed EU recommended levels by 50%.

London City Airport's Economics - The FACTS

London City Airport costs London taxpayers over £5million a year in Metropolitan Police security costs

LCA costs taxpayers, per passenger 1000% (£1.70) more than Heathrow passengers

Each direct aviation job receives a tax subsidy of £50,000 per year, £1000 per week or £25 per day by way of the £9billion lost in fuel tax and vat which the aviation industry are excused from paying

In 1998, at the last expansion, London City Airport promised jobs would go from 1100 to 4000 direct and indirect jobs

In 2008 the airport claims to have 'created' 2000 jobs – but there is no hard evidence – this falls short by 2000 of their claims in 1998

In 2008 the airport directly employs just 406 people, of which 120 come from Newham

The airport has failed to meet the employment targets as set out in the section 106.

Newham residents should make up 35% of employees, they make up 29%.

Local employment (local regarded as a five mile radius) should be 70% but is 68%.

Newham is the most socially deprived borough in London and England, even after 20 years of the airports claimed effect on regeneration on the community

London City Airport contributed a 'small contribution of £2million' to the DLR which cost £140million – this was questioned by the Transport Select Committee, May 2007

------------------------

London City Airport and the aviation industry are nothing more than modern day highwaymen...stand a deliver your taxes now!!