Scratching the Surface of Air Quality At London City Airport

The cat naughtily scratched the wall last night, missing his scratchpost by a few inches. He got a good telling off today. Sometimes rules just have to be followed and if you don't follow them, well you have to have the courage of your convictions and face the music.

However our friends at London City Airport seem incapable of facing the music without yet more spin, smoke and mirrors.

A few months ago the GMB workers union submitted a formal complaint to the Health and Safety Executive about the air quality in the airport terminal. This, allegedly was after many attempts by the union to see the air quality measurements from the airport. LCY apparently, and perhaps predictably declined to share the data according to the GMB:

London City Airport did hire monitoring equipment, which they located under air conditioning vents and operated themselves. The GMB has been denied access to the results and has serious doubts about this ‘in house’ monitoring and the lack of any independent control. As such any results from this exercise must be considered flawed.

Stephanie Attwood., GMB Organiser said, “GMB members working in the arrivals area report that the fumes get so bad that they experience signs of poisoning exposure such as: dry mouth, nose and throat, sore, itchy eyes, headaches and breathing difficulties. GMB Members working in this area have to vacate the room on a daily basis in order to escape having to breathe in the toxic air. Members of the travelling public who land at London City Airport have to use this area too as will competitors and visitors to the Olympics.

GMB is amazed at London City Airport’s refusal to agree to full independent monitoring to this potentially dangerous situation. If they had nothing to hide they would have done exactly that to reassure the travelling public. But no, instead they have botched up an in-house, off the cuff stab at monitoring that no one is allowed to the see the result of.

The reality of the situation is that London City Airport has chosen to sacrifice the health of their passengers and staff in order to line their pockets with high levels of profit. It is time for the airport to get real and clean up the situation finally putting their passengers’ and staff’s health first.”

Unfortunately FTF were not 'amazed' at all. After 8 years of the airport failing to carry out reliable noise and air readings, (all the readings in the expansion application were based on ESTIMATES because they had no data that they could use for the past 8 years!) it was not a surprise at all.

The HSE to our knowledge have yet to publish the report from their investigation, but you can't help but wonder why in that case, London City Airport has now decided to PAY Green Air Monitoring to come up with some data for them. No data is publicly available so far, but a certificate is, how wonderful! At least the staff member and passengers can perhaps check that out as their passing through, if it is displayed. Whether it gives them reassurance, or gets rid of the symptoms that the GMB describes is another story. Particularly if they knew what was outside the walls.

The data, apparently has given the airport a clean bill of health...but the 'press release' fails to mention the Health and Safety Executive report, or investigation which we assume to be ongoing. We all know that if HSE also find LCY having 'Green Air' inside the terminal, the spokesperson will suddenly be named, and the Newham Recorder will go into overdrive to report it. Incidently the Newham Recorder is going gung ho to report on the LCY paid consultants Green Air report this week. Just funny how the Newham Recorder FAILED to pick up on the story when the GMB press released it back in June. So keeping out the negatives is still priority there then!

Profits before people reign in East London, and it's quite clear where LCY's priorities lay.

Worse still is if we look beyond the walls of the airport terminal, that is where there is hard evidence that air quality is dangerous and in breach of EU regulations. We've written about that before and you can read it all here. But in addition don't forget the paid LCY consultant Dr Maggs. He seemed to think it was fine that flight expansion would push the air pollution ever further over the EU recommended levels. Bet he doesn't live in East London.

Amazing what you can buy today! Sadly, it's just a scratch at the surface of the issue of toxic air linked to London City Airport.

Jim Fitzpatrick Confirms: London City Airport Breaks Operating Conditions

Admission

In a response to a local MPs questions regarding the consistent breaches of planning law by London City Airport - Jim Fitzpatrick, Aviation Minister and MP for Poplar has confirmed that 3 flights have taken off outside of operating hours in 2007/2008. Rather an embarassing admission coming from the aviation minister himself!

And what action has Newham taken regarding these 3 breaches (alongside all the others)? Fitzpatrick didn't mention that, unsurprisingly. But we do know what the answer is don't we: predicatably no enforcement action was taken.

Pity

Perhaps a pat on the back and a promise of expansion by 'friends', and Sir Robin's alledged comments of "you can't say no to big business" all helped them forget the ghastly business....of being caught out. Ahh, pity the airport! And while we are on 'pity' that is the focus of the current campaign thought up by the reported six figure sum paid to Hill & Knowlton -'pity the airport' LCA are so warm, fluffy and love and value human beings so much...Yes so much that they are going to buy carbon credits from other parts of the world so they can dump loads of harmful carbon dust in your air, which will irritate respiratory conditions such as asthma and increase noise so that it raises your blood pressure. Oh yes, and you will have to stay inside, because it's too noisy outside and you will only complain.

Get prepared for a replay from the 'Wales Fanzine' the affectionate term that the outstanding Private Eye has for the Newham Recorder: 'it was for the children' and it was 'only the three times' and the female director 'is a mother herself'. But of course - it was simply the fanzines 'word for word copy of the Hill and Knowlton aided press release.

We knew we'd need those paper sick bags one day....oh yuk.

Newham Recorder FORCED to Report BOTH Sides Of Story

The Newham Recorder has been forced to print a follow up story on the advert by London City Airport in last weeks newspaper.

Residents from across the boroughs complained to Editor Colin Grainger, and Chief Executive Angie Carwood that Colin had consistently put to print unbalanced reporting on the airport over the past year, all bar around 3 items out of double figure features. Colin Grainger has denied this accusation and residents have requested that he provide the evidence of balanced reporting: he has failed to do this in nearly 8 weeks of waiting and it looks unlikely that he will do so. Clearly he doesn't have the evidence to argue against residents accusations.

What the Newham Recorder article didn't inform residents of was that Colin Grainger, and the Chief Executive were advised that unless reporting was more balanced now and in the future (that means two sides of the story should always be presented in articles) that a complaint would be made to the Press Complaints Commission. In the media world it is standard good practice to present balanced articles.

Clearly the Editor felt that he was on unsteady footing if a complaint was sent in to the PCC, and decided to print the follow up you see on the Newham Recorders website today.

What is worth noting is that the only individuals who appear to defend the airport are paid officials and some businesses. Although the Newham Recorder likes to make out that there are just a handful of residents who object, the 1000 objection letters, and just under a thousand signatures and requests for public inquiries from: Bexley Council, MP John Austin, Cllr Alan Craig and various other individuals and businesses seems to be something that Newham, and the Newham Recorder have to be forced to report upon.

Oh dear.

As for Alec Kelleway and Robin Wales - they ignore that the airport has consistently breached section 106 conditions for 8 years to the detriment of local residents. This means that they clearly condone the breaking of planning law. Residents have approached them directly on these issues and Robin Wales was alledged to say ''you can't say no to big business''. They should both be throughly ashamed of themselves as both are indicative of a borough which claims to be democratic but clearly is not, and also selects who it applies the law to. You know what they say: power corrupts. Let's hope that residents make their unhappiness known at the next ballot box.

Residents are now keeping a close eye on the behaviour of LB Newham and the Newham Recorder. They will pursue issues through the correct procedures to make individuals accountable as and when they need to.

LCA Breaks Operating Rules - Blame The Child

The Newham Recorder - otherwise known as the London City Airport Recorder, whoops we mean the Newham Recorder, has once again surpassed it's own standards of biased, misleading reporting in favour of LCA.

Can you spot the comments from residents in the article, or reference to the Section 106 operating conditions? No? Well you won't find them because the Editor Colin Grainger generally appears to encourage his reporters to write reports on LCA from only one source - LCA themselves (or Hill and Knowlton LCA's PR company).

So we see that Hill and Knowlton of tobacco advertising fame, have advised LCA to use the 'child' or family as a reason for breaking their legal obligations. Does that pull your heartstrings, H & K trying to make out that the airport shows compassion for human beings? We're glad they bought that issue up:

• a jet taking off after 22:30 is NOT ALLOWED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
  
• it is irrelevant who is on that flight


• where they are going


• what they are doing

But we wonder, are LCA saying that they would discriminate against sending a plane of thirty something businessmen off after allowed operating hours, but would, and did send a plane off out of hours because it had a family aboard who were going on holiday? Isn't that discrimination?

What Hill and Knowlton and LCA fail to acknowledge is that a 100 people on a plane taking off out of operating hours affected:

• 100,000s of residents in their homes who are supposed to be protected by the section 106 - but have rarely been to date:


• residents were not only disturbed in Newham but also across neighbouring boroughs


• it disturbed the elderly, babies, children and the sick

But silly us, they aren't important are they? But compared to 100 paying passengers having their flight cancelled because by sending it would be a breach of operating conditions, and breaking the 'quiet time' the airport are supposed to allow us all overnight, - residents didn't matter and LCA let their 'flight of fancy' take place yet again

Trebles all round for Hill and Knowlton and LCA. Once again showing that profit comes first - residents come....well nowhere!