What Makes For A Higher Risk of Bird Strike? Being near water, refuse tips and processing plants

It's a story we've covered before, because we found the airport didn't appear to bother to focus on in it's application to expand and we had some major concerns - Bird Strike.

On the BBC today - (just a shame it didn't do more of an investigative piece), but perhaps that's one for them in the future), they report that: "Airport geese risks played down". Apparently according to Lord Adonis and ministers, the threat of bird strike at a UK airport similar to the recent incident in New York is kept under constant scrutiny".

Who does this highly responsible job fall down on?: the regulators of course, the CAA to ensure airports are safe. We can't say that there's a lot of confidence in any of the regulators anymore, and with good reason too. The CAA are no exception. All policy and guidance but not much bite is the signature of most 'regulators'.

Apparently the amount of birds around Heathrow is not "unusual". Well we'd like to invite Lord Adonis to come along to the areas around London City Airport - yes we might still be regarded as the 'city' over here - but we can assure him that there are plenty of birds, and growing but we suspect that he'd say the amount of birds was not 'unusual'. He's right in many ways. And why shouldn't there be a growing amount of birds? Why? The river Thames is attracting increasing numbers, as does the Beckton sewage works, and the Crossness Sewage works in Bexley, which City Airport planes fly directly over as they follow up the Thames. Of course, this doesn't include the recycling plants and household waste tips. Nor does it take into account the nature reserves and brownfield areas which wildlife thrive in. Personally we love nature, and the natural world so more birds than 50% more planes is fine by us, in fact 50% more heron poles should be the order of the day. They at least don't emit emissions which are harmful to human beings and fill their lungs with fine particulate matters which make us all ill.

FTF wrote an items on high risk strike birds conflicting with more flights from London City Airport: swans, geese, cormorants, herons, seagulls etc. Unsurprisingly there was little mention of the risk of bird strike with more planes over south and east London - in relation to the large amount of water and sites which attract birds. Newham Planning didn't have an idea about it in their usual knowledgeable manner, and considering the CAA were not even consulted on the planning application to increase flights by 50% you can see yet again it was business as usual at London City Airport - trying to bury the negatives and risks yet again. Even beneath the CAA's nose perhaps?

There's been two serious cases of bird strike which come to mind in the past 12 months: the Ryan Air Plane in Italy and the more recent one form La Guardia airport, New York.

The BBC asked "if a similar incident could occur in the UK, Lord Adonis told peers that airports used techniques such as risk assessment and habitat management to "reduce" the risk of a bird strike". Can we hear LCA already penning a proposal to cement the River Thames, Lea, Royal Albert Dock, canals and all green areas over just in case bird strike should actually be taken seriously by planning committees and affect future expansion? Oh whoops, we forgot they have already started thinking using concrete over yet more water, silly us!! In fact why not just concrete over the whole of the south east and turn it into one big runway...? We are of course being sarcastic, but in reality that is what the aviation industry appear to want.

"The government also had sufficient powers to control birds around airports through close co-operation with local councils and landowners, he added". We can tell Lord Adonis that this does not go much beyond London City Airport objecting to new planning applications - the councils over this side of London (and we realise it is a long way from Westminster for some) have no idea about the safeguarding area, and what they should be doing in relation to ensuring the safety of the people under the flight paths. I suspect most have not even heard of the CAA or CAP 772.

So confidence all round in London City Airport, the CAA and your local council? Nope, not from here - Newham didn't even see fit to mention the issue in the consideration of 50% more flights so what hope is there for them to consider such risks now?

Greenwich and Lewisham Public Meeting

Wednesday 23^rd April

7.30 pm

Recital Room, Blackheath Halls

23 Lee Rd, SE3 9RQ

Speaker: John Stewart, Chair HACAN

What the Government’s proposals could mean for South East London:

All flights will land over South East London if Heathrow Expansion plans go ahead

Introduction of ‘Mixed-Mode’ at Heathrow: 730 flights a day

Third Runway: 950 flights a day

‘Mixed-Mode and a Third Runway 1100 flights a day

The maps produced by the Department during its recent consultation on Heathrow expansion show that all aircraft landing over London will join their final landing path as far east as Woolwich and Bexley and then fly in two parallel paths to Heathrow.

The northern flight path: Greenwich – Peckham – Camberwell – Vauxhall

The southern flight path: Blackheath – Deptford – Dulwich – Stockwell/Brixton

________________________________________________________________________

Residents in south east London must not forget that these flights are in addition to the current flights at London City Airport - and their dream of having 176,000 flights per year - which all adds up to making South East London a very noisy and polluted place to live in. If you have not already entered your postcode on the NATs website to see how the proposed new flight paths will affect you please do - some residents were shocked to find themselves under 12 flight paths in the area they live in within south east London!

For some, 'sweet dreams' will be a thing of the past.

FTF

Greenwich Council - Betray Residents...Again

Our campaigners in Greenwich have today received a letter from Greenwich Council Planning advising that they raised no objection against the application by London City Airport to increase flights to 120,000 per year. Unfortunately this is of no surprise to us here at FTF, nor to anyone who is familiar with Greenwich Council.

We are told that this decision has enraged the residents of the areas in Greenwich most affected and we have been advised that formal moves are being taken with regard to pursuing the shoddy way in which Greenwich Planning did not bother to ensure that a full consultation was carried out by Newham, until residents complained formally. This coupled with Greenwich Council's Cllr Brook's, the Court Jester and leader of negligence to attend meetings at the LCACC for FOUR YEARS is nothing but yet another kick in the teeth for his voters. Greenwich has let down the residents in the East of the borough in multiple ways and Brooks et al should not be surprised if this latest decision creates a backlash come voting time.

However residents in Greenwich won't be surprised, Greenwich Council is about on par with Newham with their application of 'democracy' and being 'responsive' to the communities.

Greenwich Council Alone

So south of the river, whilst John Austin, MP for Erith & Thamesmead calls for a public inquiry, as do labour councillors in East Thamesmead ward, raising issues such as noise and air pollution - Greenwich - the Greener Borough - ignore the increasing cancer causing fine particles in the air and CO2 emissions overhead with the potential of increasing levels of illness and hearing loss in the area due to 80-90 dbs overhead....

But the good news is that Greenwich Council are pretty alone in their support of expansion plans at LCA- which is a shame for LCA as Greenwich Council don't really hold much clout, or respect at all in the big picture.

Objectors Grow

Thamesmead Town have objected strongly to LCA expansion. But even more interestingly we hear through the grapevine that Tilfen Land - who owns much of the land in Thamesmead and plans to develop Tripcock Point into a huge residential development (but as some of it will be in the PSZ - City Airport have told them not to build on some of their land - how thoughtful!) have submitted a full objection through their solicitors - oh how that warms our hearts!!

That should ruffle a few feathers amongst the developers - and perhaps the foolish property pushers (who want to guarantee their big buck) at the sales end, yes, you know who you are, who claim that 120,000 flights won't affect the value or desirability of homes!!

Of course, we couldn't possibly suggest why Greenwich Council, are the only neighbouring borough council not to raise an objection - how very, very peculiar! However, we're sure that the leader of Greenwich council, Cllr Roberts, will have a nice cup of tea with his friend Jim, and it will all be hunky dory!

If any Greenwich Residents would like to know who the Councillors were, of which we are told none raised any objections, click here.

Bexley Chronicle Alerts Residents To LCA Application

Article in the latest edition of the Chronicle:

41.6% increase in flghts to and from City Airport

Residents in Bexley and Greenwich will be alarmed to learn that a planning application has been received by Newham Council (across the river) to greatly increase the volume of flights to and from the City London airport.

Readers of the Chronicle have been making their views known about low flying aircraft over Bexley and especially Sidcup and Swanley which are on flight paths in to Biggin Hill and holding approaches to Gatwick airport with Bexleyheath, Erith and Belvedere and central Thamesmead getting the brunt of increased activity and noise from the City airport.
Newham Council told the Chronicle they invited comments from Greenwich and Bexley Councils. Greenwich Council told us."Newham Council is the determining planning authority. The application was available for inspection through Newham's website and at its offices. Greenwich Council placed an advertisement in the local paper on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 to alert Greenwich residents that the application had been submitted to Newham, highlighting where the application could be viewed making residents aware of the consultation period to ensure they had the opportunity to make a representation. "Greenwich Council understands Newham is formally requesting further information in respect of the Environmental Statement and when this information becomes available Greenwich will decide how best to consult with local residents."Bexley Council told us “We can confirm that Newham asked London City Airport to provide a lot more background information and assessments of the application which they have now done. Newham are reconsulting other Boroughs with this extra detail and asking for our comments before they proceed to take a decision. It is our intention that a report should go to Planning Control Committee in February (either 7th or 28th) with a recommendation as to what comments Bexley should make. It would be premature at this point to say what they might be”

Fight the Flights - is a coalition of individuals from across various boroughs, specifically formed to object to the application by London City Airport for flight expansion to 120,000 per year and more in the future as part of their masterplan.

Spokesperson Anne-Marie Griffin commented “a lot of people are affected and disturbed by the current noise levels, and this will only get worse if the flight expansion is approved. More category ‘A’ planes will be used, even small airbuses which are noticeably noisier than the propellor planes that made up the majority of flights up until a year or so ago. What the residents describe, as the increase in noise and frequency is that more jets now fly in and out of City Airport than ever before. In addition to this, in January 2007 London City Airport applied to Newham to change the flight patterns i.e. there was a daily quota on how many noise factored movements could take place - as I understand it they now have a weekly quota and have no day to day restrictions on the amount of flights. Essentially if London City wish to fly out 3/4 of their flights in just 2 days of the week I believe they can. Newham did not consult anyone on this change - they claim it was a minor planning application and they had no duty to do so. But like residents in other boroughs we have been a lot more disturbed by the planes since the Spring of 2007 than ever before. The flight hours are 06.30 - 22.30 with the first and last 30 minutes of the flight hours being for planes which are delayed etc. London City make plenty of use of these 30 minute slots at times. In addition the Jet Centre which is part of the airport and offers small private jets for hire not regulated in terms of how many flights operate.

“We (Fight the Flights) received a letter from Greenwich Council (14/1)explaining that under a particular Town and Country Act Newham are indeed responsible for consulting with residents in those boroughs outside their own which are affected.We also received a letter of consultation from Luke Downend (addressed to the Occupier) so some letters of consultation have been sent to the Borough of Greenwich. I do not know over which radius or whether other boroughs residents are also to receive the letters.

If anyone is in a borough affected and feel they should receive a letter, but have not, - then please send the request to Luke Downend at Newham Council. They need to be accountable and carry out their job professionally and thoroughly. If Newham consult more widely it should help our campaign enormously.” www.newham.gov.uk (0208 430 3165)