London City Airport to start paying it's own Police Bill

At Last.......

London City Airport is to start paying it's own Met Policing Bill which they have expected Tax Payer to Pay for years.

Tax payers have been paying over £5.5 million a year for this private hedge fund owned businesses security. They refused to pay while expecting to be allowed to expand their business in one of the most densely populated and impoverished boroughs in the UK.

LB Newham have let this business that has brought little regeneration to East & SE London away with breaking the Section 106 agreements, increasing the noise and air pollution and did nothing to push for London City Airport to pay their own way while the rest of us had to pay towards their security.

This is one small win for the little people who London City Airport continually run over with their increasing negative business in this part of the UK.

READ MORE...

Airportwatch Statement on the Budget: APD on Business Jets

AirportWatch, the national network of airport community campaigns, welcomes the Chancellor’s proposal in the Budget to tax flights taken on private business jets. HACAN Chair John Stewart, who chairs the network, said “This move is long-overdue. In the forthcoming consultation we will be urging the Chancellor to raise Air Passenger Duty by at least the rate of inflation each year. Ideally the rate of inflation plus 1%. The fact of the matter is that aviation remains under-taxed as it pays no VAT and no tax on its fuel.”


Contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641; 07957385650

Boris Johnson's Cable Car funding plunges into crisis

Tower Hamlets Residents Group Press Release:

Boris Johnson's Cable Car funding plunges into crisis.


- Newham Councils Clive Dutton declares Cable Car fully funded.
- TfL deny private funding in place.
- Boris Johnson's Cable Car private funding promise in pieces.


A Campaign against Boris Johnson building a Cable Car through London City Airport's crash zone have uncovered that funding claims are completely unfounded.

Clive Dutton , Newham Councils Director for Regeneration last week told an influential group of planning strategists at the NLA that the Cable Car was fully funded.

Not so say Transport for London who just issued us with this reply,

"Funding arrangements for the scheme are still being finalised,although we anticipate that third party contributions, fare revenues and sponsorship will be key elements"

This is a far cry from TfL and the Mayors original claims of it being private sector funded. Fare revenue and sponsorship will not generate cash till after completion so where will the funding to build the project is still a mystery.

TfL's own Cable Car Consultation document stated that:

"TfL will not be paying to build this project. Instead, the project will be privately funded and discussions are taking place with interested third parties"

The Mayor of London Boris Johnson has also stated

"The aim is to fund the construction of the scheme entirely from private finance"

The Mayor has already moved £1.2 million of taxpayer funded London Development Agency money into the scheme.

Resident Alan Haughton said

"We have gone from Cash Crisis to Crash Crisis. What should have been a simple, environmental way to cross the Thames has played out like an episode of The Office. Bad management, building through an airports crash zone , costs going from £25 million to £40 million and still no funding. Now if Boris Johnson could just perfect a David Brent style dance routine we may have found our opening act for the London Olympics"


ENDS

Contact - 0790 515 6922

(1) NLA - http://www. newlondonarchitecture.org/ event.php?id=227&name=nla_on_ location_investing_in_newham

(2) Cable Car Consultation Document http://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2010/7/ 5/PRINT%20FINAL.pdf

(3)BBC Funding report http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ mindthegap/2010/12/12m_cable_ car_may_not_be_ready.html

(4) £1.2 million authorisation. http://www.london.gov.uk/who- runs-london/mayor/mayoral- decisions/md727

London City Airport Ground Staff Look to Set Strike Over Conditions

We are well aware that there have been issues with staff conditions and contracts at London City Airport over the past year. Disgruntled staff have been contacting us during the time and we know that they have also been in contact with Stephen Timms MP over the issue. They are very very angry at what they call 'appalling treatment' they have been at the receiving end of. It appears that the issue is now coming to a head, as reported by the GMB press release beneath. The problems just never end for LCY:

Ballot London City Airport

Friday 11th February 2011

GMB CEC ASKED FOR PERMISSION FOR STRIKE BALLOT FOR GROUND STAFF AT LONDON CITY AIRPORT IN DISPUTE OVER TREATMENT AND TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

If GMB members vote in favour of strike action this will have an impact on all CityJet, Air France and KLM flights arriving and departing from LondonCityAirportin March

The GMB Central Executive Council (CEC) which meets on Tuesday 15th February 2011 will be asked to give permission for an official strike ballot for ground staff at London City Airport. The staff are employed by an agency Aviation Resources and provide checking-in and dispatch services for the airlines CityJet, Air France and KLM flights. The dispute is about pay, treatment and terms & conditions of employment.

CityJet has refused to sanction a pay rise given the level of inflation since 2008. The employer Aviation Resources, is wholly reliant on each airline for the pay and conditions of employment of the staff they supply. CityJet management is also accused of bullying tactics. A typical example is where CityJet told a new mother on her first day back to work following the birth of her baby boy that her ‘grooming needed attention’ as she had ‘put on weight’. The airline is insisting she remove her nose stud, which is integral to her religious beliefs. She is now off work having been sent home whilst the CityJet Manager who gave the orders remains at work.

In addition, CityJet has also demanded changes in terms and conditions of employment. CityJet has insisted that the part-time mothers loose their flexible rosters that they have had over past years and go on to general rosters. These will impact badly on their childcare arrangements and ability to work at the airport.

GMB members have already voted by 97% for industrial action in a consultative ballot of all the members working on the CityJet contract at London City Airport. GMB has offered to go to mediation at ACAS and is awaiting a response from the members’ employer Aviation Resources.

Stephanie Attwood, GMB Organiser said: “CityJet’s behaviour is from another era, running roughshod over people’s rights and dignity with no regard to race, religious or family commitments. It is only a matter of time before the balloon goes up.

The GMB CEC will be told that CityJet is the problem. CityJet itself has refused to negotiate with GMB and compounds this by refusing to allow Aviation Resources to have meaningful discussions with GMB. Unfortunately, the other airlines could get caught in the crossfire and I urge them to seek to influence CityJet to put things right as soon as possible.

If the GMB CEC gives permission for an official strike ballot and if GMB members vote in favour of strike action, this will have an impact on all CityJet, Air France and KLMflights arriving and departing from London City Airport in March.”

End

Contact: Stephanie Attwood, GMB Organiser on 07793 211525 of GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy on 07974 251823 or Steve Pryle on 07921 289880.



Noted to Editors: CityJet, Air France and KLM are all part of the same group.

Whilst you pay more VAT: No VAT is charged on aviation fuel or flights from airports within the EU.

It seems all money that aviation (London City Airport) take from the London Taxpayer, as per yesterday's posts here and here, is simply not enough! For an airport and industry that likes to make wild claims about how much they contribute, they certainly seem keen to take a lot from you the taxpayer. The Channel Islands also seems to be a favourite place of London City Airport for registering business too. Strange that.

Few people are aware that aviation pays no VAT on aviation fuel and flights. We can only welcome the news in The Guardian that 'TakeVAT' is highlighting the issue of how much these and other tax breaks are costing the tax paying public. We can only hope that TakeVAT builds and builds.

Take VAT plans action against companies avoiding the 20% tax

Protest group inspired by UK Uncut activists to stage first action against groups avoiding VAT
It was formed less than six months ago, but the success of UK Uncut's non-violent, direct actions is inspiring similar protest movements. One of these, Take VAT, stages its first actions on Saturday.

Take VAT, which describes itself as a "UK Uncut-esque" action group, was formed last month to raise awareness of companies that avoid paying VAT.

These range from companies such as HMV and Tesco, which use a VAT loophole to sell CDs and DVDs VAT-free from the Channel Islands, to airlines. No VAT is charged on aviation fuel or flights from airports within the EU.

Hedge Fund Owned London City Airport Make More Unbalanced Claims

Since the the 18th November we keep hearing about a report that the City of London Corporation have paid York Aviation to carry out. Interestingly, the media have referred to it on various occasions since, but low and behold, none of them had seen the report when we questioned them. So all the spin and claims were without any reference to evidence for the past few months.

Today we see more over exaggerated claims from the airport about their self claimed contribution to London.

"As well as direct economic benefits, it has also levered investment in public transport, in particular the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal"

Really, they invested so much in the DLR? Transport from London and the Transport Select Committee didn't seem to think their contribution was so great as we wrote in a blog item in November 2008:

At the Select Committee on Transport 9 May 2007, yet again it appears that London City Airport c/o Richard Gooding has been shirking it full financial responsiblities. The moths must really build up in LCAs gold coin purse. Before reading the following, keep in mind that LCA consistently tells residents in Newham that LCA is responsible for the regeneration, particularly in the Royal Docks. They have indeed even claimed that it was down to them that the DLR came to town, always inferring that they have invested so much finance into the area and into the DLR - seems they didn't invest as much as they'd like you to think:

Q595 Chairman: How do you think dedicated services ought to be funded from airports as public transport?

Mr de Cani: The DLR extension has been funded primarily through Transport for London so it is publicly funded. However, there are small contributions through planning gain agreements, section 106 agreements. London City Airport has made a small contribution to the extension of the order of about £2 million. That compares to a capital cost of about 140 million. We would have liked it if they had made a bigger contribution and we tried to do that but the railway is serving a whole range of other objectives and contributing to the regeneration of east London so this extension was not just about the airport. We think they got a good deal.

Chairman: I am sure they did.

So they 'levered' in £2 million out of £140 million towards the DLR. So that adds up to just over a 1.4% contribution, the rest picked up by....surprise, surprise the London taxpayer! Still, going on how difficult it is to get money out of London City Airport (see reference to security costs) then we can imagine it really did have to be 'levered'.

As for LCY being the main regenerator of the area, it is arguably Exel that is the driving force bringing in £1.6b annually (just a little more than the claimed £500m by the airport!), without the noise and air pollution and whom have won awards for their wormery. The best you'll get for 'green initiatives' at LCY, is a photo of a paper shredder, as proudly displayed in their application for expansion.

Richard Gooding was quoted as saying: “Whilst we have to do everything we possibly can to mitigate environmental impacts, we run into the trap of ignoring the benefits,”

Well there's one thing that London City Airport haven't done and that's ignore the benefits, the business welfare benefits on offer to them: particularly those from the London tax payers purse through all the millions of pounds of subsidies from the London Development Agency. But don't forget the £5.5m+ a year security bill which they simply refuse to pay because they think you, the London tax payer, should pay it for them. Yes, the London tax payer is paying for a private hedge fund owned airport!

So when your council cuts your services, closes down your libraries, reduces your policing due to the economic environment at the moment: question whether London City Airport are being told to sling their hook and pay their own £5.5 million security bill, repay the £24 million security costs they've had over the past 5 years or so, and repay all the tax payer funded monies they have been given by the LDA over it's lifetime? Apparently we're all in this together, aren't we? So if your communities funding is being cut, why would tax payers money continue to be given to a privately owned airport?

Richard Gooding is correct in referring to an 'unbalance': there is clearly a very big imbalance between the amount of London taxpayers money which has funded the airport and how little is given back to Londoners. It's ironic and strange, for an airport that claims it is 'integral' and a key source of regeneration that after 25 years that Newham is still one of the most socially deprived boroughs in the country.

It must have been really helpful for that lowest tax band increase on the lowest earners to help subsidise private businesses like London City Airport. Never mind where the money comes from or at what cost eh?

Private Hedge Fund Owned London City Airport Given Millions Of London Taxpayers Money

£50,000 to develop a website, £1.6million towards the construction of an additional apron...oh and £5m+ a year to pay for airport security.

In a recent Freedom of Information request to the London Development Agency it was revealed that between 2004 -2011 London City Airport received: £1,256,629.00 of London taxpayers money from the LDA alone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of how London taxpayer public monies are 'given' to a joint private hedge fund owned airport: London City Airport.

Clearly, we are not all in it together at all. Shocking!

Sources:

London Development Agency:

http://www.lda.gov.uk/Documents/FOI_354_Support_to_Airports_Airport_Operators_(9_April_2009)_4925.pdf

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55647/response/144452/attach/4/SCANNED%20FOI%20575%20Response%204069926%201.PDF.pdf

Greater London Authority:

Len Duval, GLA Member Lab, asked a question in City Hall in 2007 about LCY's unwillingness to even contribute towards it's own security costs - LCY continue to let London taxpayers pay 100% of their security costs.

Question number 0043/2007
Meeting date 10/10/2007
Question by Len Duvall

I am not asking you to comment on the planning application; it is more about the commercial engagement with London City Airport . Are you aware that London City Airport provides no cost towards the security of its perimeters and, in a sense, that we and part of the GLA family are subsidising them? Before you enter into commercial agreements with London City Airport or give any undertaking that security, the primacy of security around our airports and users of airports comes first and therefore that they should not be subsidised by London taxpayers, they should make a contribution like other airports; even Heathrow are cooperating in that. There seems to be a real problem with London City Airport ; they do not seem to want to even engage in a conversation about costs and they are quite adamant they are not going to pay it. Do you see that as being a part of a discussion that you may wish to have to them before you exercise any commercial deal?

Answer by Manny Lewis, LDA
Given that you have raised it, Len , absolutely, in terms of the Metropolitan Police Service position. I am not familiar with those security issues; you have alerted us to those. We need to follow those up both with the Metropolitan Police Service as well as with TfL and we will certainly now factor that in.

_____________________________________________________

Article taken from the Newham Recorder but which has now been removed from the Recorder's webpage:

THE Metropolitan Police Service has spent £24 million policing London City Airport in Silvertown over the past five years, it has emerged.

The figure came to light after London Assembly Green Party member Jenny Jones tabled a question on the cost. Mayor of London Boris Johnson's written response detailed the money spent on policing in each of the last five financial years.

In 2004/05 it was £2 million, £5.5 million in 2005/06, £5.3 million in 2006/07, £5.5 million in 2007/08 and £5.6 million for the current financial year.

______________________________________________________

Parliamentary Questions:

Neill, R - Airports use of Regional Development Agency funding
Robert Neill (Conservative Communities and Local Government Minister): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what payments each regional development agency has made to airports in the last 12 months; and for what purposes such payments were made in each case.

Pat McFadden (Business, Innovation and Skills Minister): The following table shows RDA payments to airports in the last 12 months.


RDA
Payments to airports in the hundreds of Thousands
Purpose

AWM
£170,000
This relates to preliminary costs in respect of the project to extend the main runway at Birmingham International airport.

LDA
£1,050,000
This was a payment made as part of a £1.6 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) grant to London City airport. The grant was a contribution to a wider £39.8 million project to construct additional apron over the north-west corner of the George V Dock, increasing stand space and providing an extra runway link.

ONE
£416,000
This is comprised of: (a) four payments to Newcastle International airport to finance route development support to Copenhagen , Bergen and Krakow, as well as the cost of hiring a meeting room; (b) three payments to Durham Tees Valley airport for route development support to Warsaw as well as gap funding for economic development at the adjacent business park.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

AWM – Advantage West Midlands; LDA – London Development Agency; ONE – One North East; EEDA – East of England Development Agency; EMDA – East Midlands Development Agency; NWDA – North West Development Agency; SEEDA – South East of England Development Agency; SWRDA – South West Regional Development Agency; YF – Yorkshire Forward.

Evening Standard Cover Boris/TFL Cable Car/ London City Airport Crash Zone Saga

Boris Johnson's London cable car 'will cross airport crash zone'

Pippa Crerar, City Hall Editor

Boris Johnson's plan for a cable car across the Thames was in doubt today after it emerged the route will cross a "crash zone" around London City Airport.

Residents have raised serious safety concerns and called for a delay until an investigation takes place.

They say the cable car will pass through the extended public safety zone that would come into force following an increase in flights of up to 50 per cent. It means up to 340 people at any one time could be at risk if a plane crash-landed or overshot the runway. The cable car, approved by Greenwich and Newham councils and the Thames Gateway Development corporation, would carry up to 2,500 passengers an hour between North Greenwich and Royal Docks. Continued on the Evening Standard here

Transport for London, London City Airport and The Cable Car

Pictured above: CAA revised London City Airport PSZ Map

We've been closely following the story of the cable car crossing from North Greenwich to the Royal Docks in Newham and the issue around the Public Safety Zone (PSZ/crash zone). Many of you will know we are fairly familiar with matters of the PSZ and have written about it many times before which can be seen here, here, here and here.

Transport For London (and interested parties) want a cable car to cross the Thames, from the South to the North and land at the West end of the Royal Docks, Newham. There's just one problem though: the cable car goes right through the current PSZ of London City Airport. Low flying planes on landing and take off, a cable, cable houses, and an estimated 5000 travellers an hour, all at the end of London City Airport's runway. It's a bit like putting an electric fan heater in the far corner of a bathroom and hoping that it doesn't get splashed with water (please don't take anything electrical in the bathroom, it is a hazard to life). If an incident were to happen where the cable was broken, it appears the whole cable car system would be affected. We do not want to see anything like the Cavalese Cable Car Incident happen in London.

It appears however that the authorities wish to down play, or actually ignore the PSZ policy which is written by the DfT. Richard de Cani , Director of Strategy and Policy at Transport for London, who submitted the planning application, even went so far to state in the Newham Council Planning Meeting minutes that:

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

So that's alright then!

What concerns us is that TFL choose to ignore something as important as your safety when the DfT have clearly put a policy in place for all airports to protect and reduce the risk to persons in the areas each end of runways. TFL did however suddenly find an interest in the PSZ as they spent a considerable amount of time and days on this blog during the week of the planning meetings.

The DfT circular on the PSZ policy is quite clear: no new developments are to be built in PSZ areas and the people present in the PSZ should be reduced over time. There is a clause for low intensity transport, but 5000 passengers an hour dangling in cable cars from a cable that goes right across the PSZ and flight path of London City Airport flights is not 'low intensity'. The PSZ has grown as the planes have got bigger and more flights are allowed, so the size of the PSZ is simply a further blight on the use of land in East London for regeneration, but it seems that some authorities want to have their cake and eat it, especially if the risk is someone elses. Who better than the unsuspecting public?

Even London City Airport themselves raised the concern of Crossrail using an area of land within the PSZ in the Royal Docks and objected in their petition to the House of Lords:

"The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone.Aircraft operations at London City Airport cannot be modified to accommodate the extent of activity in this area. Should such activity be deemed to be unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority , restrictions may be imposed on the aerodrome licence , which would severely curtail or prevent commercial operations......."

We are told that Transport for London's Richard DiCani was alegedly clasping an out of date PSZ map as his justification for not needing to consider the PSZ at one of the planning meetings. However considering the ATWP is quite clear that any planning authority considering applications around an airport should always take into account the full masterplan, and that the Civil Aviation Authority had released a new PSZ map in mid December to both Greenwich and Newham Councils (which is a notification, not consultation, there is a distinct difference between the two) which clearly indicated that the cable car was to travel through the PSZ.

The extent of the PSZ (albeit different to the most recently published map) had also been indicated in predictive maps in the London City Airport expansion application, so there is really little excuse for the PSZ and the associated risks not to have been fully considered as required by the DfT circular and policy.

What is even more surprising is that it is very hard to find where the PSZ has been properly addressed at all in the Cable Car application process and three authorities went ahead and approved it 2 weeks ago. It is that which appears to have raised enough concerns from Friends of the Earth and a local Tower Hamlets resident to challenge this approval, both of whom we are assured fully support a cable car, but not at the expense of the safety of those on the ground and passengers.

The latest development in this sorry saga is the release of a wake turbulence report from London City Airport (more to follow on this in the coming days!). The cable car not only sits in the PSZ, it also sits in the wake turbulence path as modelled by Halcrow. At the Greenwich Planning meeting it was stated that "the applicant has been advised by London City Airport that wake turbulence will not be a significant issue". Considering the reports indicate that there have been two incidents of wake turbulence damage recorded (considerable damage to a roof of a building in one) and it appears these have been so since the introduction of larger jets, it seems that the focus should be on the word 'significant'. Wake turbulence is heard 3-4 times a week at the end of the runway, and cannot be ruled out as not a risk to the cable car system at all - hence the use of the word 'significant' no doubt! We suspect that most passengers in the cable car would not wish to be caught up in a wake turbulence vortex, not unless they were expecting a white knuckle ride across the Thames.

To illustrate the impact of wake turbulence on the ground, let alone to a cable car, this may assist: "In the late 1970s I was driving north on I-5, passing the end of SAN Lindbergh Field. A Delta L-1011 was just touching down on 27 and I noticed that a palm tree in the median of the freeway was flailing wildly. A moment later the vortex hit me. It almost rolled my VW bus over." More documentation of just how serious it can be read here and here.

We will be posting a lot more on wake turbulence, what it is and what residents experience in a wake turbulence attack in the coming days.

Now objections have been submitted to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and he has been requested to call the application in on safety grounds. Boris is going to have to deal with just one of the consequences of his support for London City Airport expansion now, how untimely that it should come so soon!

We are just struck by how the PSZ suddenly became less important and one that apparently local authorities can afford not to fully consider to protect the safety of individuals around airports.

Greenwich Council Planning - PSZ? 'I know nothing'

During the Christmas holiday, the team here at FTF were made aware of the Notification of the change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone. This change was on the cards as each time London City Airport demands more flights and bigger planes the public safety zone enlarges to take account of increased risk in the nearest landing and taking off areas at each end of the runway.

The Civil Aviation Authority are now responsible for the administration of the Public Safety Zone. The Department for Transport write the circular on the PSZ, and the local authority in which the PSZ sits is the authority responsible for ensuring that the numbers of people in the PSZ is ideally reduced over the years, and that no new buildings or structures are allowed to be built which would increase the numbers of people in the area. But considering that Greenwich and Newham Councils have just approved around an estimated 2,500 people an hour travelling on a cable car which goes straight through the PSZ, and that Greenwich Council claimed that the none of the cable car travelled through the PSZ then it makes you wonder if they are simply incompetent or like to water down the interpretation of the safety rules when it suits them. The councils and Transport for London may wish to consider the Cavalese Cable Car disaster in 1998 to focus their minds on why it might not be a good idea to put a cable car through the Public Safety Zone of London City Airport.

So the indication is that Greenwich has little regard to the PSZ, it certainly didn't worry about it when it supported expansion and by doing so immediately put thousands of properties in Greenwich in the noise contour, and double figures of homes in the crash zone. So how were residents in those areas to know that they were going to find themselves in those areas? Unless residents read through page upon page of the planning application for expansion or had found us nobody indicated to them how they would be affected. None were told to expect to have their windows sealed up and ventilation installed, none were told in advance that their properties were going to be in the PSZ crash zone. That is a scandal in itself.

However the administration of the PSZ is in good hands with the Civil Aviation Authority, but no matter how much work the CAA do, it cannot do the work of the local council.

In mid December the CAA called Greenwich Council Planning's head Steve Pallet and advised them of the notification of change to the PSZ and requested that there be an area where residents could look at the PSZ map in the council office, in addition 35 letters were sent out by the CAA to the dwellings that now fall into the PSZ. We are advised that Steve Pallet of Greenwich confirmed that there was an area where the map could be viewed from. Greenwich were advised that the items were being posted to them and they were duly posted on 20th December 2010.

FTF were made aware of the PSZ notification on 4 January, and noticed that Greenwich Council were listed in the document as having the map to view and this being within a set consultation/notification period. On 5 January FTF called Greenwich Council Planning to arrange to view the map and were advised that they knew nothing about it, that the planning officer was away on holiday for the week and that only he would be able to deal with it. FTF was told to call back a week later but decided to email Steve Pallet the link to the document and highlight that the map should be available during the whole of the consultation period, not just when his planning officer returned from holiday. Greenwich Council's Steve Pallet made no attempt to respond to the email.

By Thursday 27 January FTF were concerned that Greenwich had made no contact in response to the email or phone call so we made contact with the Civil Aviation Authority and then Greenwich Council once again.

Greenwich Council claim to have never received the information in the post, claiming it may have been lost in the weather conditions. FTF raised concerns with the CAA that residents may not have received notifications and had not had access to the PSZ map and asked if they would consider extending the consultation/notification period. The CAA responded by leading by example and confirmed they had re-posted not only the documents to Greenwich Council but also to all the 35 dwellings affected and had extended the notification period, essentially starting the whole process from scratch.

In our opinion the Civil Aviation Authority went the extra mile to ensure this notification was flagged up to the planning department in mid December. Few organisations would call ahead of actually sending the paperwork through and ensuring that the map would be available to view. We'd like to thank Kate at the CAA for being so responsive to our communication and efficient in dealing with the issue as unlike Greenwich Council, concerns were raised, addressed and the practicals were all completed in just one day.

What concerns us is that Steve Pallet was asked about the availability of the PSZ map on 5 January 2011, and now that we know he was called by the CAA in mid December you would have thought that his department would have checked to see if the documents had arrived, and if not followed up with the CAA. But no, Steve sat on the email and no action was taken at all until FTF once again chased the document on 27 January. In 3 weeks Greenwich Council had made no attempt not only to contact FTF but also to call the CAA to enquire about the PSZ information that Steve Pallet had been told was to be with him in days after the phone call of 20 December 2010. If we hadn't of chased this, Greenwich clearly would have made no effort to contact the CAA to enquire the whereabouts, and in fact never did. It was the CAA who made the contact. Residents in the Greenwich PSZ could have found themselves yet again let down by Greenwich Planning.

The council have been consistently sloppy and careless over anything to do with London City Airport which affects land/properties/residents in Greenwich from day one, they had to be chased to respond to the original airport planning application for expansion (when a resident called 2 days before the deadline the planning officer said the consultation pack was on the floor and he hadn't looked at it, never mind that no residents in Greenwich at that time had been consulted directly. FTF were solely responsible for ensuring that each household in the Thamesmead Moorings area (the area in the crash and noise zone) of Greenwich received a consultation letter on the expansion from Newham Council. We also had to chase Greenwich on responding to the airports noise action plan.

Could Greenwich Council systematically fail the residents in the most affected areas from London City Airport any more than they have done for the past 3 years? We think not.

The Notification of Change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone notification period now runs until 14 March and is open to comments which are to be submitted to the CAA. The PSZ map affecting West Thamesmead, SE28 is now on display at Greenwich Council Planning Department, Crown Building, 48 Woolwich New Road, Woolwich, SE18 6HO.

10% Decline in Flight Demand At London City Airport And The Taxpaying Scapegoats

Think it's noisy now? London City Airport shamelessly breached its planning agreement 4 years ago, (and Newham took no action at all) by allowing almost 20,000 more flights to use the airport than allowed - taking them up to around 90,000 air traffic movements that year. That year was a nightmare, and for many it was the tipping point from not being bothered too much by LCY operations at all, to being very bothered about the increasing noise levels. Now the Civil Aviation Authority statistics show that in 2010 the air traffic movements (atms) have plummeted back down to 59,919 offering a respite of sorts - but one that is purely as a result of lack of demand and which will change as quick as demand for flights changes.

If you think current noise levels are a problem at 59,919 atms then just imagine what it will be like at 120,000 atms per year and the impact on the daily lives of 100,000's of East Londoner's. Back in 2008, John Austin the then Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead made his concerns well known regarding the proposal to increase flights from 79,616 to 120,000 per annum:

“Many of my constituents are naturally concerned about increased levels of noise and atmospheric pollution if the planning application were granted. If permission is granted for an additional 40, 384 flights per annum over 260 week days, the airport will be allowed to operate an additional 155 flights per day".

So an 155 extra flights a day on top of the past allowance. If you are already affected things can sadly only get worse, and if you notice them but are not unduly bothered at the moment then be prepared as a 100% increase in flights each day will without a doubt further deteriorate already ridiculous noise levels and air pollution in the capital. We already know that noise levels in East London are comparable to those experienced in Kew due to noise research carried out, we also know that there is an ever building accumulative noise level of both London City and Heathrow jets overhead.

Surprisingly, Boris Johnson wants to make this worse for you too: he supports expansion at all airports apart from Heathrow, and in addition to continued expansion and more runways around the south east Boris Johnson wants a floating airport on the Thames Estuary. His plan isn't to replace other airport expansion, but to simply add to the capacity in the skies above us. These are the skies that both NATS and the CAA have already indicated that there is not enough space in. So what's changed? The aviation lobby, personal interests, politicians? Clearly the demand for flights is not there to support expansion plans despite their pulled out of the hat claims. LCY may keep spinning the PR of new flight routes, but they are not advertising how many flight routes have been dropped due to being unsuccessful and a lack of demand.

New flight routes being launched and then dropped at LCY within months does not indicate there is a demand from the public at all- Newquay to London City Airport was a great example. But of course at the time it was feted as having HUGE demand! Of course, that's why it's now completely disappeared off the timetable with many of the others. It's simply greed, and they can afford to be greedy: Aviation pays NO VAT and guess what: City Jet's new Boss on the block Christine Oumieres was reported on the Evening Standard website (sadly for some bizarre reason the item appears to have been pulled off the website yesterday - search for 'City Jet Tax' under the news category on Google and you'll find the listing):

"CityJet boss tells Government to look elsewhere for taxation targets‎"The boss of short-haul specialist carrier CityJet today fired a warning to the Government over making airlines a "tax scapegoat". ...

One resident commented:

"What a (bad) joke - no VAT or duty on fuel, no VAT on servicing, spares..... and they still can't make money? As the old soldier has it: "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined". It can't be blamed on APD since "all those City types" whose vitally important travel is the airport's raison d'etre are able to claim back their travel costs as business expenses. So perhaps CityJet aren't charging enough".

Obviously airports like LCY refusing to pay their security costs to around the tune of £5million a year and letting London Taxpayers pay it for them, and ZERO VAT is just not enough for this aviation industry. I think we ALL know who the taxpaying scapegoats are here - and they are the taxpaying residents of London and beyond (especially those that don't even use the airport!).

2010 Total Air Transport movements for the whole year (CAA)

LONDON CITY 59919 -10.4

HEATHROW 449283 -2.4

GATWICK 233567 -4.8

STANSTED 143069 -8.3

City Airport’s expansion is a green light to increased misery for many more Londoners – Caroline Pidgeon

CONTACT: Mark Morris, Senior Press Officer GLA Liberal Democrats, 020 7983 4336/ 07917214788

Immediate release: 20 January 2011

Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group, commenting on today’s Judicial Review decision upholding Newham Council’s decision to significantly expand London City Airport said:

"Many people in east and south east London are already facing serious problems with noise and disturbance from air flights. Today's decision provides the green light to increased misery for many more Londoners.

“I remain convinced that greater scrutiny should have been given to the initial planning decision by Newham Council. Questions also remain as to why Greenwich Council never objected to the planning decision despite the serious impact that the airport is already having on so many of its residents.

"Most significantly this decision sends out the message that the economic benefits of aviation are still being exaggerated while its environmental harm is largely overlooked."

ENDS

Press Release: DISMAY AS JUDGE ALLOWS NEWHAM’S GREEN LIGHT TO LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION

Friends of the Earth press release :

Embargo: For immediate release, Thursday, 20 January 2011

Contact: Neil Verlander, Friends of the Earth press office, 0207 566 1649

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights: Tel: 07984 300558

Local people and green campaigners reacted with disappointment today after a High Court judge refused to overturn Newham Council’s decision to expand London City Airport. Campaigners are now considering an appeal.

Residents, represented by Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre, took the council to court in November last year after it decided to allow a 50 per cent increase in flights. The community representatives argued that Newham Council failed to consider changes to Government policy on climate change and did not properly consult boroughs and residents in the surrounding area.

Reacting to the decision, Chair of local campaign group Fight the Flights Anne-Marie Griffin said:

“We are desperately disappointed by this judgement.

“London City Airport already causes major disturbance and pollution for people living locally – the disappointment we feel at this outcome will be shared by thousands of residents across East London who are severely affected by London City Airport’s operations but were not consulted about expansion.

“Without clear guidelines to local councils on aviation expansion, the emissions targets set have no hope of being met.

“Fight the Flights is currently taking legal advice as to whether to appeal.”

Friends of the Earth’s London Campaigner Jenny Bates said:

“Airport expansion will have a terrible impact on local people’s quality of life, as well as increase air pollution breaches and undermine efforts to tackle climate change.

“Many of the destinations served by London City Airport could easily be reached by fast rail travel.

“If this Government wants to keep its pledge to be the greenest ever it must develop a transport strategy which encourages people to use greener forms of transport over climate-wrecking flights.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The High Court hearing took place on Thursday 18 and Friday 19 November 2010 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London.

2. Newham Council's decision to expand London City Airport by 50 per cent will increase flights from the airport from 73,000 to 120,000 a year. The decision was made in October 2008, after which Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre submitted a number of letters on behalf of Fight The Flights to Newham council in protest, raising the issues of climate change, air quality and race equality.

3. On 15 January 2009 the Government announced its intention to reduce aviation emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050. Newham Council issued a formal grant of planning permission at a meeting on 8 July 2009 without taking into account the Government's target in their decision-making.

4. Fight the Flights: http://www.fighttheflights.com/

5. Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre provides access to legal advice and representation to people wishing to use the law to protect their communities and the environment. The Centre operates a free legal advice line for members of the public on 0808 801 0405 (open between 6.30-8.30 pm on alternate Wednesdays).

6. Friends of the Earth believes the environment is for everyone. We want a healthy planet and a good quality of life for all those who live on it. We inspire people to act together for a thriving environment. More than 90 per cent of our income comes from individuals so we rely on donations to continue our vital work. For further information visit www.foe.co.uk.

Boris Goes After Royal Family but Not London City Airport for Policing Bill

FTF were fascinated to read an article in the Evening Standard today quoting the Mayor is to 'fight for the MET's £5million royal wedding bill'.

This does surprise us. Since Boris Johnson became Mayor he has not once showed the same concern about London taxpayers money in relation to London City Airport. Between 2004 and 2008 London City Airport cost London taxpayers £24million. This was for services provided to the airport by the Metropolitan Police.

The airport were asked by Len Duval (Greater London Authority member), when he was Chair of the Metropolitan Police Committee to contribute to some or meet all of the cost. Mr Duval quoted that the airport would not even discuss the matter. Therefore the airport continues to cost us London taxpayers millions each year as it refuses to pay ANYTHING TOWARDS IT'S SECURITY COSTS , essentially denying London Communities the services they pay for.

The Mayor of London may wish to provide his reasons for why he is going after the Royal Family for a one off £5million security bill for the Royal Wedding, but has failed to even raise the issue or seek the millions of pounds that London City Airport continue to dodge paying.

In view that the same report states that: 'The Met police is in financial dire straits, with a £30.4million cut in its Home Office grant this year having resulted in a freeze in officer recruitment and the loss of 955 posts' it is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor has continued to allow this free for all attitude for London City Airport security costs to continue.

New Study: aircraft noise disturbs people at lower levels than previously thought

Campaign group calls for flight path alternation to be extended to provide relief

HACAN, the campaign group which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, has called for action to be taken following a the publication of a new European Report which shows that people are disturbed by much lower levels of aircraft noise than previously thought.

The report from the European Environment Agency (1) indicates that over a million people are disturbed by aircraft noise from Heathrow, more than the three times the number admitted by the Department for Transport.

HACAN has published a short briefing, No Longer just a West London Problem, which shows how London is affected (2). The briefing was launched yesterday at a meeting in City Hall hosted by London Assembly member Val Shawcross.

HACAN Chair, John Stewart, said, “The new report from Europe backs up what our members have been telling us for years. Aircraft noise can be a serious problem for people living over 25 miles from Heathrow. In parts of East London it is made worse by the huge growth at London City Airport .”

HACAN is calling for the alternation of flight paths, which currently gives people in West London a break from the noise, to be extended to other areas of London and the Home Counties.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). The 2010 European Good Practice Guide (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/good-practice-guide-on-noise)

(2). Read Report Below

For more information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated 17/12/10

No Longer Just A West London Problem

London City Airport Fairground ride-like buzz all tax free

This week we hear that landing at London City Airport is one on the most stunning airport approaches in the world "making for a fairground ride-like buzz". The Top 10 released by Private Fly is run by Adam Twidell who is an ex-RAF pilot and joined up with London City Airport to develop RAF Northolt for private jet use. Like London City Airport Private Jet centre, RAF Northolt security is fully paid for by us the taxpayer. London City Airports security alone is in excess of £5.5 million pa. The interesting fact about Private Fly's list is that London itself is the only major city over flown and London City Airport has the most densely populated surroundings. Flights pass over City Hall, London Eye, St Pauls and Canary Wharf to name but a few.

In light of the recent near miss over Hackney involving one of these private jets it is hard to believe that high profile, densely populated areas in a major city can be overflown while pilots get a "fairground ride-like buzz". The private jet centre at London City Airport directly contributed to the breaking of permitted flight allowances from the airport. Up to 15,000 private jets a year flew from the airport yet where not included in any ATM's (Air Traffic Movement)counts. They were just anomalies not included in any targets or totals yet residents got to breath the fumes and hear the noise from them. Plane Stupid highlighted this when they breached the LCY perimeter and locked themselves onto a private jet.

Meanwhile London City Airport are throwing around "economic impact assessment" figures with wild abandon and no proof. A report can be expected in 2011 showing how it benefits the economy to £500 million annually - the same as a large supermarket. The airport states that it contributes £21 million a year in air passenger duty. What they don't tell you is that the Private Jets pay no APD (Air Passenger Duty) at all - a loss to the economy of at our estimate of £1.5 million pa. Nor do they tell you they pay no VAT on the fuel they use. The only contribution these uber rich users make is to noise, air quality and climate change.

The Human Cost of London City Airports Expansion

Over the past three years of the Fight the Flights campaign we have seen a steady increase in residents getting in contact with us. Over the past 18 months this has risen dramatically. What they all indicate is the problem of London City Airport (LCY) flight noise, and the accumulative effect of flight noise from both London City Airport and Heathrow, and how far the problem spreads out across East and South East London.  We appreciate that London City Airport doesn't like to hear this fact (they have the advantage of not having to listen, unlike most residents under their flight path) but they have contributed significantly to bringing West London noise levels to East and South East London.

We have also noticed that the emails from residents have steadily become more and more unhappy, for many at the realisation that they are not entitled to any noise insulation despite having been given that impression by comments made by London City Airport and the planning authority, Newham Council, in the past. Others have been massively affected by the change of flight paths by the Civil Aviation Authority. Newham has readily passed the buck on this, as do London City Airport on this issue. But if London City Airport flight paths had to be changed due to jets not being able to use the same departure routes as the old propellor planes, who asked to use the jets, and who approved their use, and the additional flights in the past?  Relevent points to consider.

Residents aren't buying the pass the buck scenario any longer as their private lives in their homes and communities have become increasingly invaded by the activities of London City Airport and of course also Heathrow. Bearing in mind that flights are currently down around 25,000 per annum on what they were 2 years ago, when Newham Council allowed London City Airport to breach it's flight limits by around 20,000, then you will appreciate that things are only going to get worse when flight numbers increase again.  This is why it is essential that residents continue to speak out, write/email their local councillors, MPs, MEPs, GLA member, Civil Aviation Authority, local papers and complain to Newham Council, the planning authority for London City Airport, by email or letter. We appreciate that this takes time, but it is the only way that politicians will understand the breadth of the problem and take steps towards assisting you.

Residents are always welcome to contact FTF for help and advice and we will always do our best to assist or put you in contact with someone who can help. Please be patient if we take time to respond though, which can occasionally happen due to our workload. What is important is that if you have only began to notice aircraft noise and are disturbed by it recently then you understand that you are not alone. It is not unreasonable and residents are certainly not a nuisance if they complain. It is your right to complain if you are being negatively effected and we believe it is your right to expect to be listened to and for your concerns to be acted upon.  There are 100,000s of residents who are experiencing the same right across London, you are most certainly not alone.  

We'd also ask you to consider donating to FTF using the paypal facility on the website. FTF runs financially on next to nothing, but we do need to pay for things such as website domain costs and the odd ream of paper. Donations however small are very much appreciated! You can donate on Paypal HERE

In the meantime we'd like to share just a few of the comments we've received from residents which we feel indicate the impact of the dreadful blight of newer but bigger noisier jets at London City airport, increased LCY flight numbers over the years, the flight path changes and in addition Heathrow flights. These are the hidden stories of lives blighted by an airport that got too big for it's own good and was allowed to runaway with expansion over the years:

"I have lived [by London City Airport] for 58 years and since the introduction of the new jets the noise is insufferable. In the inseption of the STOLPORT the airport installed double glazing to all properties front and back. But since the introduction of these new Jets the double glazing is not fit for purpose and the airport should upgrade to sound proof from the noise is there anything that you can do for the residents in [my road]". Resident of Newham.

"I live locally near Royal Victoria. I share your view against City Airport expansion and the flight noise. I have written to Newham council complaining about the noise but so far the response is not meaningful (mayor has not come back at of today). What i was told that they categorise the plane by its noise emission so they can have less jet planes compared to more propeller planes (i really don't think Newham council keeps any record of how many jet planes fly out of the city airport every day). You are doing a great job for the local community. Keep up the effort!!!!" Resident of Newham.

"I have lived in this borough [Newham] for nearly fifty years, I have seen a lot of changes but this one is the worse, I cannot sleep at nights in the morning five o'clock on the dot they start to go every seconds another all through the day one can't hear the television if one is on the phone, you cannot hear a word. I have spoken my landlord asking if they would install double glazing, they are too many planes, we need to do something about this annoyance." Resident of Newham.

"The noise pollution from flights in this area is unbearable. Every morning we are woken up by flights. We cannot go into the garden because airplanes are rattling overhead every 60 seconds. On the weekend relaxing at home is impossible because we sit with teeth on edge, waiting for the next jet to zoom overhead. I used to work from home but have been hounded out of the house by the noise and now have to go to local libraries or cafes to get some respite from the planes. So to recap: LCY stops us from being able to sleep. It stops us from being able to sit in our garden It stops us from being able to relax at home. And it stops me from being able to work at home. LCY stops us from being able to almost everything we should be able to do in our own home. Our choices? Spend £25,000 insulating the house (which we don't have). Or sell the house. Or have a miserable existence in our own home. To say that those are "choices" is nonsense." Resident of Tower Hamlets.

"I am still absolutely fed up with being disturbed by aircraft noise. I am woken up most mornings by aircraft noise at just after 06.00. From then on the flights are more or less continuous through the day- howling, roaring and whining. There are hundreds and hundreds of flights passing over my house every day. This is a relatively recent problem so there must have been a radical change in fight paths. WHY WAS THERE NO CONSULTATION?" Resident of Redbridge.

"When I moved to W Forest 10 years ago and to this address 5 yrs ago the only thing we heard was the ocassional vehicle and the birds! We thought we had found that peace until one day I think last year I was sitting in my back garden and heard several plane noises overhead. I really thought it unusual and it must be a one off. Then I notice it happened for a few more days and went on my computer to see if I could find any news about it.  I cannot believe that such an important change could be allowed without consulting with residents and have to think that this is because it affects poorer London boroughs in East London". Resident of Waltham Forest

"I live in Redbridge and although I appreciate that the noise I have to endure is minimal compared to those poor people living in the shadow of City Airport, it is really getting on my nerves, especially when low flying airplanes rumble through my double glazing after midnight! Oh.. there goes another one, as I'm typing". Resident of Redbridge

"In the last six months I have noticed inreased levels of air traffic in my area. Sometimes I can count three separate planes in the sky and the noise is becoming almost constant. I am very worried that additional flights will be granted into City Airport". Resident of Southwark 

"The volcanic ash crisis brought some relief from the noise, and reminded us all of how things used to be before they imposed this on us. Just this week the flights have been continuous after coming home from work, getting noisier and noisier which is almost unbearable". Resident of Havering.

"For several weeks now we have been noticing aircraft noise and believe it is an increase of flights going into City Airport. We live in Swanley  just on the edge of Dartford Borough. Obviously the noise here is not as bad as closer to the airport but does, I believe, show the extent of the problem. Before this year we have never noticed the planes, and have only noticed them more now, now that the weather is warmer and we have the windows and doors open. Additionally there are definitely more flights. If we sit in the garden at times we can hardly talk to each other".  Resident of Sevenoaks District Council

FTF High Court Challenge - This Thursday

The hearing for the legal challenge against Newham Council in regard of the approval to allow London City Airport to expand to 120,000 flights per year is to take place this thursday:

18-19th November 2010, expected start time of the hearing  is 10.30am for 1,1/2 days.

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

The grounds of challenge are:

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/. 

HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Major Report Confirms Aircraft Noise Levels in East London can Match Those in West London

For immediate use

The controversial research published last week by campaign group Fight the Flights which showed that aircraft noise levels in parts of East London can match those in West London has been backed up by earlier research carried out by the respected firm of acousticians, Bureau Veritas.

The report, No Place to Hide, published in 2007, found that the combined noise of Heathrow and City aircraft over Poplar matched the noise in parts of West London. It recorded 84 planes flying over in a two hour period, 45 Heathrow and 26 City Airport. The noise level of the Heathrow aircraft ranged from 60 – 69 decibels and the City aircraft from 64 – 82 decibels.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path and which commissioned the report, said, “Those sort of levels are higher than parts of West London. We can’t get away from the fact that aircraft noise has become a real problem in East London.”

Stewart was critical of City Airport’s reaction to the Fight the Flight’s findings, “the Airport cast doubt on the findings because they said they were not carried out in accordance with internationally-recognised methods of measuring aircraft noise or performed by independent professional acoustic consultants. Our report was and it came up with very similar results. Stephen Turner, the Director of Bureau Veritas is one of the country’s most respected acousticians. Indeed, his firm were the advisers to Newham Council when it approved plans for the expansion of the airport. The bosses of City Airport have to come to terms with the fact that they work in a very noisy industry and not hide behind fine-sounding words.”

ENDS

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated: 9/11/10

New Research Reveals Sky-High Noise Levels from City Airport

PRESS RELEASE   01.11.10

"the levels of noise being measured across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government”

Research carried out by Fight the Flights (1) in alliance with University College London (UCL) and London 21's Mapping For Change (2) has shown that some residents living under London City Airport flight paths are experiencing noise levels much higher than many people under the Heathrow flight path in West London.  

Local residents were asked to record the noise of planes (3) overhead using hand held noise monitors on loan from UCL. They were also required to record their emotions in response to the noise. Some took photographs of the sources of noise. The residents were from a wide area of east and south east London. Some of them lived under the controversial new flight paths introduced last year by the Civil Aviation Authority (4).

Noise levels measured ranged from 87decibels to 35 decibels. 87 decibels is higher than a plane flying over Kew Gardens in West London and comparable to the noise of a food blender or lawnmower. The emotions described ranged from irritated to relaxing for the scale of the readings taken. Whilst noise data was being collected the volcanic ash cloud also halted all flights over the UK for a few days during April, giving residents a unique chance to compare a quiet no flight period with business as usual. During this time measured sound levels dropped dramatically with the majority of readings falling between 40-50dbs which is comparable to a refrigerator humming. Few noise events measured above 50dbs.

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).

Fight the Flights Chair Anne-Marie Griffin commented “This project highlights just what noise levels residents are having to put up with under the flight paths in east and south east London, Fight The Flights plans to carry out a more extensive project in the future with UCL. It should not be forgotten that East London suffers a double whammy, of not only London City Airport Flights, but also Heathrow flights overhead adding to the misery.”

A Redbridge resident commented "This used to be a peaceful quiet area to live. The planes have single handedly changed that, and I am angry that I was not offered any opportunity to comment on either the expansion of London City Airport nor the change of the aircraft flight path, which has so compounded the existing problem of aircraft noise in my area over the last couple of years. Another resident said that '”I have been affected by more aircraft noise than ever before and I was surprised to discover that neither residents of Waltham Forest nor the council had been consulted by Newham Council on London City Airports application for the expansion of flights “. Another stated "the noise due to the increase in jets has increased, the no flight period allowed us the luxury to have windows open without having to close them due to excessive jet noise from London City Airport and Heathrow flights commencing from 4.30am over the borough of Greenwich".

Dr Muki Haklay of UCL commented:  “Mapping for Change was set up to support community action and citizen science. We are pleased to see the community’s use of the noise meters and the methodology of noise mapping that we have developed to record the level of ambient noise and their level of emotional stress that noise can cause. The mapping of the personal experience and the measured level of noise is useful in communicating the influence of urban noise on communities”.

Louise Francis of Mapping for Change stated: “Contrary to recently published online noise maps, which are created using computer-based models, the results collected by the community reflect actual ambient noise readings. The UK Government have been creating noise maps that show the predicted level of environmental noise from industries, airports, and road and rail networks in response to the EU’s environmental noise directive. The current exclusive system used to calculate various noise sources does nothing to look at cumulative ambient noise, that is the noise communities are actually exposed to”.

Fight the Flights is calling on the new coalition government to act on the unacceptable noise levels from current aircraft activities and to halt all further expansion plans at London City Airport and new airport developments in East London. Anne-Marie Griffin stated that "the levels of noise being measured  across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government. It isn't only about residents being disturbed, it's also about the effect on public health and the economic cost of that". Excessive noise levels have been shown to have a detrimental effect on human health and associated illnesses are already over represented in the Borough of Newham.

Fight the Flights is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London on 18,19 November 2010.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. FTF launched a legal challenge, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newhams' 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.

2. This snap shot noise mapping project was in alliance with Dr Muki Haklay and Louise Francis of Mapping for Change, a social enterprise of University College London and London 21 Sustainability network. http://www.mappingforchange.org.uk/  Residents took readings for a minimum of 10 days – and up to 21 days of 3 readings, 3 times a day in: Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Greenwich, and Waltham Forest. The Royal Docks map may be seen here: http://www.communitymaps.org.uk/version3/includes/MiniSite.php?minisitename=Royal%20Docks

3. 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, 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)

4. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) signed off a new flight path for London City Airport in Spring 2009. This flight path previously had mostly traveled over the borough of Newham but now almost misses the borough completely as it has been moved further north. It now affects wider areas of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge, some being newly affected. http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1736

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

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

The noise mapping slide and the noise comparison table will both be available on the FTF website in due course, or provided upon request.

For more information:

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

Press Release dated 01/11/10