12 FACTS about London City Airport

• Failed to take actual reliable noise readings from 2000 to 2008

• Failed to take reliable air readings from 2000 to 2008
• Since 2006 the airport has been exceeding their air traffic movement limit of 76,000, steadily climbing to almost 100,000
• Failed to have an efficient and accurate complaints system
• Consistently deceived the community by providing incorrect and partial misinformation.
• Noise mitigation programme years behind schedule
• Noise mitigation eligibility: Only homes built or given approval after 1997 are eligible for noise management – this excludes around 99% of homes in projected noise contours.
• 46,000 additional residents across 3 boroughs will be bought into the noise contours, 100,000s of residents will be affected beyond the contour
• An estimated 1000 family homes in Greenwich will be in the extended public safety zone (crash zone)
• Drew Road Primary School is less than 200 yards from the airport terminal
• The airport is situated in the most densely populated area of the whole country
• Aviation is the fastest growing source of C02 emissions and if it continues at it's current rate will use up all the Climate Bill emission allowance, even with using carbon credits
  The climate bill accepts the effect of greenhouse gases on our environment – aviation is ignoring it and is being given preferential treatment in doing so.
  

BA London City Airport First Class Flights In Exchange for First Class Pollution in East London

BA have launched the first look at the new 32-seat aircraft interior cabin layout of the all-business Airbus A318s it will use on transatlantic routes from London City Airport.

"That's our new cabin, that's the London City product that will come on line in the autumn," said Silla Maizey.

Can't say we've noticed that the Civil Aviation Authority have given this jet approval to fly from London City Airport to date - probably because they haven't. Still Silla, an accountant has to try to look on the bright side when the economy is threatening every thread of BA's business.

We note Silla doesn't have to live under a flight path and that her two dogs and cat can breathe air less toxic than a 4 year old has to breathe around Drew Primary School. Lucky her! What is funnier is that Silla is head of BA corporate responsibility. So what do Silla and British Airways say to the children who go to the school which is less then 600 yards from where their polluting planes take off? Or to the highest mortality rates in asthma sufferers under 30 in Newham in the whole of the country? It's all just an inconvenient truth to British Airways no doubt. Or is it as simple as sending the London City Airport Barney the Bear to the class room with a handful of logo'd LCA sweatshirts?

British Airways don't give a stuff about communities affected by their activities, a bit like Richard Gooding of London City Airport and Sir Robin Wales and the Newham elected labour councillors - they do not care that residents are dying premature deaths in London from toxic air pollution, and that children's development is being affected so much so that schools around the airport all have children with above average levels of learning difficulties.

But this plane is for the uber-rich. 32 seats and tickets wont be cheap (unless you are a lucky Newham Councillor who receives free flights from the airport). So who cares about the most socially deprived borough in the country which so far has benefited from just 120 directly employed airport jobs in 20 years of operation of the airport?

As usual BA and LCA are off the mark. Only a few days ago BA cancelled its Dublin route and then admitted it is set to make two years of losses running into several hundred millions of pounds after an unprecedented 20% collapse in passengers travelling in first and business class, the cabins where it makes most of its profit. But of course, apparently they only cancelled the Dublin route due to the crash at the airport and the investigations that continue into the BAE146's that have taken some out for checks. So we'll be expecting to see the British Airways Dublin route re-scheduled as soon as they have all been serviced then, right? We don't think so!

No mention of any cancellations on the London City Airport web of spin, only preferring to announce positive spin. No mention anywhere of the two crashes , route cancellations or Flasher the Angry Swiss Air Pilot.

Even more shocking is the environmental impact that this jet will allegedly have. The Business Travel Research Centre at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom found that the carbon emissions level from first class may be more than double of those of passengers in the economy section.

More harmful pollution over East London and those primary school children just a few minutes walk from the runway - still when there's money to be made - that's nothing to worry about at all in the world of aviation!! It's a small price, especially when it is the state that picks up the bills, and the pieces.

We look forward to seeing how the airport will be spinning this. But maybe its ok - Perhaps Hill And Knowlton are about to help them out seeing as the last few months have been a PR disaster for them.

Newham Challenged on Air Quality Data by FTF Lawyers

Air quality in East London is set to further deteriorate - but the London Borough of Newham see this as nothing more than an inconvenience, so didn't really address it or plan how they will deal with it as they allow their friend Richard Gooding and LCA to expand unsustainably.

It's worth noting to those not familiar with the area that Parker Road is right by the Drew Road Primary School and by the new playground (pictured above) just 200 yards away from the airport terminal and next to residential areas. Camel Road has high density housing as does the whole area alongisde the south side of the terminal. It is rather surprising that the governers and headmistress of the school have not indicated any concern about the effect of the airport expanding on their pupils. Unbelievable in fact that they would not be concerned about the effect of growing noise and air pollution on the children. Wonder why that is?

In a letter to the London Borough of Newham Planning Department FTFs legal representative at Friends of the Earth wrote:

"Further to our recent correspondence we write to raise a further issue in respect of this application, concerning air quality. We refer to the table 3.10 at 3-30 of the supplementary addendum to the ETS, which indicates that the area of Camel Road/Parker Street (R2) is already expected to breach the NO2 limit value of 40 micrograms per litre set under the EU’s Council directive 96/62/EC, transposed by the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2007. In addition, it is projected that Camel Road/Hartmann Road (R1) will also breach the limit if the airport is expanded."

You will be aware that regulation 6 of the 2007 Regulations prescribes limit values for various pollutants. NO2 is a Group A pollutant and it is apparent from Table 3.10 of the Addendum to the ES that the limit value will be breached in 2010. In relation to R1 that breach is directly caused by the contributions from the application scheme, and in relation to R2 the increase of the exceedance is made significantly greater by the same contribution.

In these circumstances we do not understand how Table 3.14 of the same document can assert that "The proposed scheme would not contribute to air quality exceedances…" This statement appears to be contradicted by the evidence. We also note that regulation 6(2) states that the limit values "shall be attained by the attainment date…". It would appear to us that the Council would be in breach of this statutory requirement if it were to grant a planning permission which is predicted to have the direct result of breaching the limit value.

Your authority will be well aware of its duties under ss 84 and 85 of the Environment Act 1995 to designate AQMAs and to supplement information in relation to the area in question by reviewing this information. Given that the information provided in the ES indicates that a breach is likely in both Camel Road/ Parker Street and Camel Road/Hartmann Road we are unclear as to the basis on which the local authority intends to approve an application which would deepen an existing breach and make a second breach worse.

Further, the information provided through the Environmental Statement would appear to indicate that your authority should designate both of these locations as being AQMAs and produce action plans to deal with such risk. This is not a matter that appears to have been addressed in the planning officer’s report.

As set out in the air quality guidance in LAQM PG (03), air quality is capable of being a material planning consideration and the impact on ambient air quality is particularly important where the development is proposed within, or adjacent to an AQMA; and where the development or associated traffic is likely to result in predicted levels of air pollutants close to a breach (in this case the development is predicted to lead to a breach- see paragraphs 7.33 to 7.35). The planning officer’s report (paragraphs 8.6.1 to 8.6.7) refers to the mitigation options in the ES but these include matters such as "increasingly stringent legislative controls" which impact on traffic flows and the DLR. These are beyond the control of the airport operator and the local authority and therefore cannot be regarded as mitigation in the strict sense.

We note the commentary at paragraph 3.7.10 of the supplement that the predicted concentrations may be over-predicted. However, the legislation simply requires the existence of a risk of a breach rather than complete certainty. In addition, the aircraft emissions included within the assessment are simply those from the landing and take-off (LTO) cycle. In this regard we would refer you to a recent European Commission study on air quality impacts of non-LTO emissions from aviation. This study, which can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/air_quality_impacts_finalreport.pdf
concludes that Nitrogen Oxide emissions from the non-LTO phase contribute to a 1-2% increase in Nitrogen Dioxide in the vicinity of airports (see table 9 and page 52).

This underlines that the expansion of London City Airport is likely to have an adverse impact on air quality and that your authority is required to determine how this will be addressed before granting the planning application.

______________________________

Isn't it strange how the Newham Planning Department could overlook all those issues? At this rate, Drew Road Primary School children won't be able to run around the block for the effect of pollution, let alone be part of the Olympics. Carry on Newham, allowing the area to be increasingly polluted - and affecting the health and development of children and residents! And all for 120 jobs at London City Airport for Newham residents after 20 years of operation. Real regeneration and benefits for the community - we think NOT.