Under the Flight Path - How noisy is it for you?

Are you affected by London City Airport aircraft noise? Do you live in Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham, or Bexley?

Residents in boroughs across East London are already collecting noise data but we are calling for more residents in the boroughs listed above to take part. 

If you are able to commit to taking noise readings in your area for a minimum of 10 days but preferably for up to 3 weeks, we will loan you the noise meter and show you how to take the readings and record the data. 

Interested? Find out more:

Email us your contact details - fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

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

Written Answers, Daily Hansard, Houses of Parliament.

London City Airport

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

7 Dec 2009 : Column 36W

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LB Newham Continues To Ignore It's Obligations

After months of asking LB Newham to monitor noise levels in their communities, residents are now coming to the conclusion that Newham don't want to know the real noise levels because they present an inconvenient truth. There are still no actual reliable noise readings for the communities around the airport after almost a year of residents asking.

London 21 and UCL carried out a noise mapping project in the Royal Docks during the Spring and the noise levels recorded, and averaged out far exceeded those 'estimates' by the airport. Since the discovery of the document which stated that London City Airport had not taken accurate noise data collection for 7 years residents have looked to Newham to fulfill the obligation.

Newham have attended a few homes with a handheld noise monitor - on one or two occasions taking just a few sets of readings in a short time period. To take representative readings such readings need to be taken at different times of the day - just as the London21 noise mapping project required. But considering LB Newham has a legal obligation to ensure that noise readings are taken, and LCA are incapable of doing this, then Newham should have themselves set up their own noise stations around the vicinity of the airport.

LB Newham have always had to be pursued by residents for weeks if not months before taking readings, which unfortunately have transpired as inadequate. Now it appears that some residents in the Royal Docks areas are being told that LB Newham is not willing to take further readings. This is despite the fact that the law is not on their side, and we suspect the ombudsman won't be either.

In the absence of LCA (and LB Newham) doing their job properly you'd think LB Newham would want to look after their council tax paying residents - but no, they appear to be too busy burying the bad news for the progress and benefit of business, and perhaps keeping their Mayor happy? That term 'Robinocracy' is spreading.

LCA Breaches Requirement to Measure Noise - The Evidence

Bickerdike Allen's 2005-2006 Noise Categorisation Report - tells you all you need to know about London City Airports complete flouting of all the rules set out in it's planning permission.....7 years worth too. Trebles all round for LCA and Newham!!

You can find the document here:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/fighttheflights/files/
named: 2005-2006 BAP Noise Categorisation Report.pdf

You'll have to rotate the view of the file though - everything about LCA is just topsy turvy!

The Great Web Of Deception

There are a lot of things about this application that have been uncovered during the last 9 months or so. Most of all it is the level of deception that the community have been fed in the absence of real facts, and accurate information that has been the most concerning.

1. Residents are still being told - ''noise mitigation will be offered to all households in the noise contours to deal with the increased noise levels".

This is a really good one to get rid of objecting residents, who haven't seen or had time to read the details of the noise mitigation programme, and whose main concern are the noise levels.

There's two problems with this: firstly the noise contours are based on estimates, secondly any home built of given planning permission after 1997 is not eligible for assistance to sound insulation. You may be offered motorised ventilation simply because opening your windows will be unbearable with the level of noise from jets - but this will not reduce the noise experienced from 50% more planes at intervals of 90seconds!

2. Noise contours - residents have been led to believe that the current noise contours are only estimated for the past year.

Estimated noise contours are a real money saver for London City Airport (think of all those properties which may be eligible for noise mitigation for the past 7 years but haven't been identified as 'eligible'!)and rather helpful when you want to get an application through to expand to a major airport, in the middle of a residential area when the noise levels really matter.

As you will know if you read this blog they have been estimated for over 6 years. Why? Because LCA and Newham don't care and appear to have had some sort of amnesia with regards to the Section 106 requirements since the document was written. But don't worry, a nice, new shiny section 106 with a 50% increase in flights will make everything much, much better, so we are told!

3. Employment Figures - the great myth

Jobs, jobs, jobs - a great tool to try and bury the outweighing negatives to any community! After all who would dare stand up and say no to more 'estimated' jobs? Even if they are just words in the quest to get approval to make loadsamoney, even if it does mean an additional 46,000 people will have to live in sealed up homes, children's development will be affected, and cardiovascular conditions continue to soar in Newham and Greenwich in the areas most affected by the noise levels? Stephen Timm's is right behind on the job issue, shame his equivalent in health isn't right behind the people on the health impacts! Still the price put on the head of a resident, appears to be far less value than that of business - check out the PSZ guidance to see this in practice! But we are sure with Newham's excellent track record in enforcement they will of course follow up and independently check the validity of such job growth claims!!

The airport never, ever quotes that it directly employs just over 400 people. Instead it likes to think it can isolate other job growth in the area and take all the credit for it themselves.

So just over 400 jobs soon become 2000 jobs 'created' but they consistently omit in identifying the distinction between the two categories. They could give lessons on how to purposely mislead the reader - and we thought it was all ''open and honest''! When members of the LCACC also start to express their unhappiness with the figures and projections of job growth, well that says everything.

Itsy, bitsy, spider....

Newham State Current Outstanding Environmental Issues Can Be Addressed By Expansion

Newham Planning's Case Officer has suggested that giving LCA approval to expand is the only way to secure improvements in monitoring and mitigation of environmental and noise issues.

Strange how the airports own 'up to date, state of the art' noise monitoring and the requirements of the section 106 put in place by the LB Newham didn't manage to achieve this over the past 7 years.....what hypocrisy LB Newham is full of. They share with LCA one thing: a total disregard for the impact on residents of noise and pollution. We have never seen anywhere in which a judgement on the environment and noise effects on a community can be made in the absence of actual noise measurements or an independent environmental impact study - and why is that? LB Newham appear to be scared to carry out their own independent readings for fear of the reality and of having to refuse LCA the application perhaps? We can only speculate on that. The circus they promote is an utter disgrace to their respective sectors. This will do nothing but further galvanise objectors to see this farcical consultation and application be called in by the Secretary of State.

Following paragraph taken from page 8 of the LB Newham LCA Committee report:

Having assessed the information submitted with the application, and the additional information to complete the Environmental Statement requested by way of Regulation 19 notices, it is concluded that there are negative environmental and economic impacts as well as economic benefits to the proposal. While mitigation can be achieved certain impacts such as the noise levels in outside open spaces cannot be effectively overcome. It is considered that on balance the adverse impacts of the proposal are not such as would justify withholding consent in light of the benefits and the relevant policy considerations. This is considered to be a finely balanced recommendation which can only be made subject to securing more effective monitoring and mitigation of the airport’s impacts on the local environment than are currently achieved. It is recognised that consent allows the opportunity to secure improvements in this regard.

Newham Council/LCA - The Section 106 And The Shame of It All

Fight the Flights is waiting for a response from Newham Council with regard to London City Airport failing to follow the Section 106 Agreement with regard to providing accurate and actual noise data for the past 7 years. As you will recall, London City Airport have failed in monitoring the actual noise levels for all those years and it is those levels which should also be used for noise contour maps and for the classification of aircraft to enable the correct amount of noise factored movements to take place. This is why no actual data is submitted with the application to expand - only estimates.

Newham Council is responsible for making sure that the Section 106 Agreement is adhered to, and clearly in 7 years they have not based on our current knowledge. How long can it take to resolve an issue with noise monitoring......in Newham...more than 7 years - that has to be a record and a real bonus for London City Airport operations.

However we await Newham's response and will consider the legal position when it is received. We currently feel that Newham Council has been negligent in their position to ensure the health and safety of residents and of maladministration of the section 106 agreement enforcement. But we are getting a good picture of how the LB of Newham behaves towards residents from looking at a variety of planning applications which are all equally as controversial in how: consultations have been carried out and also of the lack of enforcement of conditions and obligations in the Section 106s.....hardly a case of lead by example.

And where we ask are all the local councillors in this....heads buried in the sand? It is actually quite shameful that none of them appear to have raised the lack of noise monitoring at the airport in 7 whole years. Scandalous. It's the residents that voted them in so you'd think the local councillors would be in touch enough to address such important issues which affect the health and safety of their constituents. But still they can also be voted out. However if any of the local councillors can provide us with any information indicating that they have addressed this issue, and have fought for and represented the health and welfare of the residents in the areas affected, we would be more than happy to put a posting on to indicate that.