Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise, Whilst BACityflyer and LCY Celebrate the Noisiest Jets

PRESS RELEASE – IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 08.11.10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise

"It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport”.

Greenwich Council Planning Committee voted to support expansion at London City Airport on the basis that the airport introduce more jets to replace propellor planes in the belief that they are quieter and have less impact on the communities. But this is contradicted by work done by the Civil Aviation Authority. It shows that Jets at London City Airport are significantly noisier than propeller planes – in particular the new Embraer E series jets are considerably noisier than the old BAE RJ Avro 'whisper jets' that they are replacing (1).

Fight the Flights, the campaign group which is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London next week (2), can reveal these figures as London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer welcome with some fanfare the 700th E jet using the airport (3). 


The new jets have already impacted on community noise levels showing an increase in complaints being made to the airport as discussed in the London City Airport Consultative Committee Meetings (4). 

The noise difference between a propellor plane and an Embraer E series jet on take off/reverse thurst landing is an increase of 13dbs, this represents a 130% noise impact increase in real terms and is comparable to standing beside a road drill. The difference between an old jet and the new jets is 5dbs on a gliding approach which represents a 50% increase in noise impact in real terms. 

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights commented: “It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe the jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport. Surely if a borough is heavily overflown at just a few hundred feet on arrival and departures any council would wish to consider the noise impact above their borough not only the noise impact a mile away in another borough”. 

She added: “The Planning Officer either failed to understand the official statistics on the aircraft noise profiles and impact or was given incomplete information as the jets used are far noisier than the propeller planes. In a Freedom of Information request Greenwich Council revealed that their decision and understanding of the noise levels was based on stationary aircraft noise readings measured on the airports runway, approximately a mile away in London Borough of Newham. Greenwich has significant residential areas, including schools, covered by excessive noise levels”. 

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation:official noise database: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/

Noise Level of 

Propellor plane: ATR-42 Model: ATR42-500 Engine:PW127M 80.7db on full power lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing.

Jet aircraft: Embraer 190 Model:ERJ190-100 Engine: CF34010R6A0-1 93.3db on full lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing 


2. The legal challenge is taking place at the Courts of Justice on the Strand on 18th and 19th November. FTF launched it, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newham’s decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request/or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF, founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.

3. London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer celebrate the 700th E jet : http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1245

4. An increase in complaints regarding the new larger jets: Embraer E series, being used at London City Airport has been discussed at the London City Airport Consultative Committee, with complaints being raised by two local Newham Councillors: 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin0710.pdf     Item 17E 

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin1010.pdf      Item 6J 


Additional sources of information: 
The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets [as opposed to the propellor planes they are replacing], data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999     43 

2000    33 

2001     29 

2002     25 

2003    26 

2004    28 

2005    36 

2006    37 

2007    50 

2008    58 

2009    63 (Jan-Sept) 

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

Fightthefights.com      http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/ 

For more information: 

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 08/11/10

Jet vs Propellor: Greenwich Council's Failure

As we've documented before Greenwich Council are the only neighbouring council who continue to blindly support London City Airport expansion. However as we revealed some time ago, their support is based on absurd data and a report of errors by the planning officer which clearly showed that he had little or no understanding of the environmental impact of aircraft noise on the residential areas that Greenwich allow to continue to be built beneath the flight paths. Greenwich Council appear to have based their decision to support on noise data taken from STATIONARY ACTIVITIES ON THE LCY RUNWAY, EVEN THOUGH THE RUNWAY IS NOT IN THE BOROUGH OF GREENWICH! But let's just explain the background a little more:

Two years ago local councillor for Thamesmead Moorings and deputy head of the council Cllr Peter Brooks, assured a local resident that if they could provide the evidence that his officer had advised them incorrectly that he would get the issue sent back to the planning committee. The evidence was provided but a few weeks later the resident received a letter saying that the complaint was going to be forwarded to Newham Council to be dealt with. Once again, Greenwich Council were not willing to face the facts nor take responsiblity for their officer making a huge error in their planning report and recommendations to the planning committee.

The Greenwich Planning officer recommended to support the expansion of LCY. On looking through his report, it seemed apparent that not all of the information had been available to Greenwich, or that it had not been fully grasped by the officer as we found some serious errors/understanding in his report. The officer clearly believed, and continues to, as does the council on his advice: that propellor planes are noisier than jets. How silly is that!!

The LCY annual categorisation report, indicating that props are quieter than jets, has been forwarded to Greenwich on more than one occasion and yet with no response which addresses the error of the officer and how this clearly would have skewed the premise of his recommendations to the planning committee. From independent noise monitoring in Greenwich a jet from LCY is a minimum of around 10 dbs louder than a prop when it flies overhead. Most props are around 72-76 dbs as they pass, most jets are around 84 dbs and upwards.

Greenwich Council have continued to run with the line pushing London City Airport to replace all props with jets as is in their response to the LCY noise action plan. But this is the worst thing, as we know, and is rather embarrassing for Greenwich Council. The growth of the use in jets at LCY is already creating further noise disturbance than in the past, and yet Greenwich Council are saying 'we want more jets'.

We could not understand what had led the Greenwich officer come to such a conclusion and so an FOI was submitted to them. The response showed that the Greenwich Officer based his assumptions and recommendations on ground noise data on the runway itself!

This is quite extraordinary. It is not clear which document that Greenwich extracted this information from, and whether or not it was the most recent application. But the use of this data makes no sense at all - as the runway is not even in Greenwich, and the noise heard in Greenwich is not only noise from on the runway, but largely noise from the jets as they fly over on their low level flight path!

In a further FOI request and response, Steve Pallet from Greenwich Councils' Planning Department stated that almost 5000 properties in West Thamesmead would be covered by an expanded noise contour, inclusive of the 2000 additional dwellings that have been given outline planning permission to be built at Tilfenland's Tamesis Point , which is partially in the Public Safety (crash) Zone but which the landowners claim "promotes real quality of life"!. This is a huge increase on the current dwellings affected and you would have thought that Greenwich would have considered why, if jets are supposed to be quieter, that the contour was even growing to that extent with the proposed expansion. It just makes no sense at all, even from a laypersons point of view. Greenwich clearly were not aware that the increase in jets over props had already increased rapidly at the time of their decision. What did they think was making the noise contour grow?

Greenwich seemed to be under the impression that noise monitoring should continue as it had by LCY (they appeared to have no idea that no reliable readings had taken place by the airport for around 8 years) and that all the data they had been provided with was based on estimates.

Greenwich Planning board supported the expansion, we believe 1 vote tipped this, and it is arguable that if the accurate facts were presented, that the board had been alerted to the possible environmental and health impacts, and that no health impact study had been carried out in Greenwich, that the planning board outcome would have been very different.

Furthermore, in regards to the Noise Action Plan consultation run by LCY and Greenwich's response to it: You will note that Greenwich still continue to push for more jets to replace props as they believe this will be quieter! This offers no prospect to the homes in the noise contour having noise levels halted, nor reduced at all.

No health impact study was carried out for Greenwich, despite it being the only borough with homes in the public safety zone (crash zone) and the Greenwich PCT have confirmed in an FOI request that they were NOT consulted on this issue. This seems peculiar, particularly as there are such severe respiratory and cardiovascular health issues in the area. The mortality data by ward in Greenwich, received from the PCT, for Thamesmead Moorings (the ward nearest to the airport in Greenwich) shows that actual cardiovascular mortality is well beyond the expected baselines for men and women. This corresponds with the evidence on links between cardiovascular disease and excessive noise/pollution around airports.

We do not believe that any environmental impact study was carried out specifically upon Greenwich, though this may have been missed.

So, what next for Greenwich? They are in an increasingly embarrassing position whilst there is growing political focus on the impact of LCY expansion than ever before and the upcoming judicial review challenging the increase of flights. This is in addition to the boroughs around Newham all noticing an increase in noise from the increased use of jets, who have been more than vocal about this: how on earth does this bypass Greenwich Council? Ear defenders are perhaps given out to the planning committee?

Woudn't it be nice, and terribly democratic, if the leader of Greenwich Council, Cllr Chris Roberts finally did the right thing and got this issue fully reviewed within Greenwich? Perhaps they might consider getting some professional advice next time, rather than the seemingly amateur assessment that was made and passed as a recommendation to the planning committee. They might want to consider why their officer felt that it was appropriate to use stationary noise taken from the airport in Newham rather than look at the estimated projected noise contours that were to widely expand over Greenwich, and Tamesis Point. Those 120,000 flights have to fly over Greenwich, they don't simply land vertically onto the runway.

All documents referred to in this blog item are available upon request.

Greenwich Council IGNORE London City Airport Blight on Residents

Just over a week ago FTF approached 15 elected officials in the London Borough of Greenwich by email, asking them if they had individually responded to the London City Airport Draft Noise Action Plan (DNAP). The individuals were chosen on the basis that their ward is either beneath the London City Airport flight path, or is a ward in which we have received complaints from residents regarding noise and pollution from LCY aircraft.

Out of 15 elected officials contacted, only one responded. The individual who did respond, to their credit was honest and declared that they had not been made aware of the DNAP and had therefore not responded, and apologised. However here is the list of elected officials who are paid to represent your best interests in the borough of Greenwich whom have failed to respond. FTF can only assume that they have made no effort at all to ensure that residents in Greenwich affected by LCY are taken account of and their best interests promoted in the response to the DNAP. Each ward listed beneath is a link to the individuals profiles.

peter.brooks@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward: In noise contour & crash zone

peter.kotz@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward: In noise contour & crash zone

jackie.smith@greenwich.gov.uk, Thamesmead Moorings Ward : In noise contour & crash zone

chris.roberts@greenwich.gov.uk: Peninsula

mary.mills@greenwich.gov.uk, Peninsula

dick.quibell@greenwich.gov.uk, Peninsula

clive.mardner@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Wood

steve.offord@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Wood

jagir.sekhon@greenwich.gov.uk, Abbey Ward

harpinder.singh@greenwich.gov.uk, Woolwich Common

rajwant.sidhu@greenwich.gov.uk, Woolwich Common

beverley.jones@greenwich.gov.uk Woolwich Common

len.duvall@london.gov.uk, GLA member for Greenwich & Lewisham

You cannot help but ask what these individuals are paid to do if they are not representing you on such important issues as responding to the DNAP and familiarising themselves with the effects on their residents of increased aircraft and jets from LCY? It's something worth considering when you get to the ballot box in a few months time.

Out of courtesy FTF have emailed Andrew Stern in the Greenwich Council Communications department with this item, asking him for his comment. We await his response.

Original email sent to the above elected officials

Saturday, 16 January, 2010, 13:44
Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you as Chair of Fight the Flights, the community group who campaigns against the expansion of London City Airport. You may be aware that last week the High Court gave our group permission for a legal challenge against the London Borough of Newhams approval of a 50% expansion of flights at London City Airport (from 76,000 flights up to 120,000) to a judicial review. The press release may be seen here: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/01/high-court-gives-fight-flights-green_5918.html

This correspondance however is requesting for information from you in regard to your response to London City Airports Noise Action Plan, (as required by the European Noise Directive 2002).

Please see the attached formal response from Fight the Flights to the London City Airport (LCY) Draft Noise Action Plan (DNAP). You have been sent this email as you either represent residents in wards in Greenwich that are affected and/or that FTF has received complaints from residents in your ward regarding LCY flight noise.

I understand that most of you would have been consulted as stakeholders and that you would have by now have submitted your own responses as the deadline of Friday 15 January has now passed.

The opportunity to respond to the DNAP was particularly important for Greenwich due to its UDP stating that 'Greenwich is sensitive to overflying by all types of air traffic'. Coupled with this, the vast, high density regeneration housing projects in West Thamesmead and beyond being covered by an ever expanding noise contour (encouraged by Greenwich Councils support of flight growth at LCY), the importance of Greenwich stakeholders and representatives having responded cannot be underestimated. The effects of LCY flights are not only isolated to Thamesmead Moorings ward but are felt in other wards throughout the borough.

Please could you indicated whether you have responded to the NAP consultation as an individual, or as part of a group?

We are intending to produce an article indicating who responded to the DNAPs consultation in the boroughs most affected by London City Airport operations and therefore we would appreciate your response. Greenwich is not the only borough who is being approached in this way.

If we do not receive a response then we will assume that no representation was made to the NAP by yourself. If you have responded then we would greatly appreciate a copy of your response in your reply.

We thank you for taking the time to read this email, and look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



Fight The Flights - "Fighting against the lies, fighting for the truth".

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.