This Week: London City Airport To Be Discussed In Houses of Parliament

FTF campaigners and residents have been doing some amazing work in east London, talking to their local politicians about the effects of the expansion of London City Airport and the legal challenge that has been launched against Newham Council against their approval of expansion.

One of those politicians is the well respected James Brokenshire MP and he has not only already submitted questions to Paul Clarke, but has secured an adjournment debate on the subject of London City Airport expansion. Mr Brokenshire commented:

“I’m angry that residents living in this area are bearing the brunt of two bad decisions. Increasingly, people will notice the noise nuisance from airliners climbing out of London City as the number of flights increase in line with the new permissions. It’s a double whammy effect for Havering residents and it’s totally unacceptable".

“Most people will be totally unaware of the decisions that have been taken against their wishes. I believe that the inability of the public to object to these plans simply isn’t right. That’s why I am seeking to bring these concerns to the notice of the Department for Transport through a formal Parliamentary debate and press them to reverse these damaging changes.”

It is expected that the London City Airport adjournment debate will be discussed in the latter part of the afternoon. If you wish to attend the adjournment debate you can do so by simply going to the Houses of Parliament and queuing for entry to the public galleries. You may wish to check before setting off by clicking here.

Houses of Parliament
Tuesday 15 December 2009

2.30pm

Oral Questions
Treasury, including Topical Questions

Legislation
Flood and Water Management Bill – Second reading

Motion
to approve a Statutory Instrument relating to Welsh language

Adjournment
Aircraft movements at London City Airport - James Brokenshire

James Brokenshire MP - Houses of Parliament Written Answers on London City Airport

Written Answers, Daily Hansard, Houses of Parliament.

London City Airport

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent estimate he has made of the likely change in the number of (a) aircraft movements and (b) passengers at London City Airport in the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [303849]

7 Dec 2009 : Column 36W

Paul Clark: The Department for Transport's latest published forecasts of aircraft movements and terminal passenger numbers at airports in the UK are presented in "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts", January 2009. This is available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/atf/co2forecasts09/

The Department's latest forecasts of air transport movements are given in table G8, page 141 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts". The central estimate for the number of air transport movements at London City airport in 2015 is 92,000 an increase of 28,000, or 44 per cent., over the 2010 estimate.

The Department's latest forecasts for airport terminal passengers are given in table G3, page 135 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts". The central estimate from the Department's forecasts for the number of passengers using London City airport in 2015 is 3.7 million passengers per annum (mppa), an increase of 1.4 million passengers, or 68 per cent., over the 2010 estimate.

The above estimates only include scheduled passenger services. The Department has not modelled unscheduled business jet charters and air taxis at London City airport. The model currently underestimates scheduled air traffic movements at London City airport. Table 2.4, page 34 of "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts" provides a comparison of modelled and actual air transport movements. For larger airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick, modelled and actual figures are within a couple of per cent. of each other. Moreover, the forecasts in "UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts" fulfil their intended purpose-to inform and monitor long term strategic aviation policy. We currently expect to publish updated aviation forecasts in 2010.

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent representations he has received on aircraft noise at London City Airport. [303850]

Paul Clark: No formal representations have been received on aircraft noise at London City airport. However early next year, the airport will be required to submit a draft strategic noise action plan to the Secretary of State for consideration for formal adoption under the European Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC). If the requirements are met, the Secretary of State for Transport will recommend to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that the action plan should be adopted. The airport is currently conducting a public consultation on its draft noise action plan. This consultation closes on 15 January 2010.

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the level of noise nuisance arising from aircraft using London City Airport; and what changes in that level have been recorded in the last 10 years. [303852]
Paul Clark: Responsibility for monitoring the noise levels of aircraft operating at London City airport rests with the airport operator. Under local planning agreements with the London borough of Newham, the airport is required to produce noise exposure contours on an annual basis. These are published on the London City airport consultative committee's website.
7 Dec 2009 : Column 37W

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport how many (a) jet and (b) propeller aircraft (i) arrivals and (ii) departures there have been at London City Airport in each of the last 10 years. [303853]

Paul Clark: The following tables show the number of jet and propeller aircraft arriving and departing London City airport from 1999 to 2008: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091207/text/91207w0008.htm

James Brokenshire: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Transport whether his Department has had discussions with the London Borough of Newham in connection with proposals to increase aircraft movements at London City Airport. [303854]

Paul Clark: The Department for Transport has not had any such discussions.

Welcome to more flights squeezed in during rush hours

LCA and airlines at LCA want to squeeze more of the percentage of 120,000 flights per year into the busiest hours of the day. They are crying to the Department for Transport that they just can't fit enough flights into those hours in their current system, so they want to get ACL to coordinate the hours and flights. So more flights...in the busiest hours? More chance of an incident more like.

So to squeeze more flights in, and no doubt cause more misery in the future, they have gone to the DfT to ask for the designation of London City Airport to be 'coordinated'. Of course it's simply about making and saving more money for the airport and airlines fat cats - nothing else but that.

What is funny is that the document admits to the environmental costs to flying larger aircraft, more passengers and more fuel burn at London City Airport. Fuel burn? When did they mention that before? And surely more planes don't have environmental costs? We don't think that's what the crass PR of LCA have been saying in their spin communications??!

Wasnt' it British Airways who was telling us how 'green' their planes were at London City Airport and how they were reducing emissions - of course this was revealed to be utter greenwash and inaccurate.

The document states:
Delays also impose costs on the wider community through environmental costs (from increased emissions, noise, etc) as well as additional costs incurred by other parties involved in their air transport business such as travel agents, tour operators and airports. These costs will increase with larger aircraft, more passengers and more fuel burn.

But surely delays are the same as increasing the amount of jets by 50% over the residential areas of east and south east London? But since when did DFT or LCA worry about the costs to communities from airport expansion? It's not in their radar at all. But one surprise, DFT raised this point:

There are also reductions in carbon dioxide emissions through reduced fuel use as aircraft taxiing and approach times are reduced. For the assessment we have relied on DfT carbon cost savings assumptions as calculated using CORINAIR fuel flow rates, with regard to the current London City Airport fleet mix and taking account of different fuel burn in the air and on the ground.

2.28 Because reduced delay might allow airlines to provide extra flights, which come with associated emissions, there are concerns that environmental savings might not be truly additional when reduced delay is used to enable a more compressed schedule that allows increased use of aircraft. However, for this IA we have only identified the partial effect that occurs when delay is reduced at London City, and we have not tried to analyse the potential for increased frequency of flights, within the planning limit. This would bring with it both increased benefits for airlines and passengers, but a reduction in environmental savings.

They forgot to say a REDUCTION IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH OF RESIDENTS TOO. But don't worry, the DFT don't think that a more concentrated amount of flights in any one hour will have an impact on your health, that's why they don't feel the need for a Health Impact Study to be carried out.

Same old, same old: DfT and the Secretary of State you just carry on forgetting about the cost to the people who live beneath flight paths or around the airports.

London City Airport & Newham: How do you trim down a Public Safety Zone?

By ignoring the model that the Department of Transport provides to calculate it of course!

The public safety zone* maps (see definition of PSZ below) which LCA submitted to the London Borough of Newham appear not to have been drawn up using the required model provided by the Department of Transport. This gives the effect of making the public safety zone areas smaller than they should be and covering less households, and also perhaps, schools and other sensitive places - such as prospective bridges. Is this simply yet another attempt to bury the bad news so they can get those extra flights out - at any cost??

We can't think why they would ignore the DfT model to draw up the Public Safety Zones with the result in making them smaller? Even stranger that LB Newham didn't enforce that DfTs model was used in the process of the PSZ mapping by the consultants employed by LCA.

But it's not strange at all...it is just the continuing saga of LCA and Newham's disingenous behaviour throughout the whole of the consultation and application to expand LCA flights to 120,000 this year and another 50% next year, taking them up to 176,000 per year.

*What is a 'Public Safety Zone'? It is an area which is a long triangular shape at each end of any runway which is deemed at more risk of being affected by an air traffic incident upon take off or landing. The triangular shape widens and lengthens in accordance to the type, and number, of planes operating out of the airport.

Guidelines are set by the Department of Transport in how this area should be calculated and mapped out and where homes, traffic etc should not occupy the area at all, or in small numbers. New buildings are not allowed to be built in the PSZ unless planning approval was given before the PSZ was identified, current homes of which residents will find themselves being covered by the PSZ map are simply told to live with the risk. Despite the guidelines being set by the DfT it is the responsibility of the local council to apply them.

PSZ Enquiries: Department for Transport: 020 7944 8300 - Airports Section.
Document: free to download.

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.