How to respond to London City’s application to expand

We’ve just heard that City Airport has asked Newham Borough Council if they can double the size of the terminal.  Their planning application includes a request to build an extended taxiway and bigger parking stands so that larger aircraft can use the airport.  It also wants to provide more car parking spaces.

So now City Airport are not only trying to get all planes to fly over one narrow flight path, but they’ll be bigger too!

So the next action for us is to write to Newham to tell them why you object to these planning applications.  Unfortunately, the closing date is this Friday 23 January so we need to act quick.

If you want to object, then please email at Newham Council, putting “13/01228/FUL and 13/01373/OUT” in the title line of the email. Feel free to adapt the following template:

Dear Mr. Sahadevan,

I live under a London City Airport flight path and am concerned about the above consultations.  I urge Newham to reject the application for the following reasons:

  1. If the expansion works go ahead, there is no guarantee that the larger planes that will be able to use the airport will be quieter than the current aircraft and already I have to tolerate a significant amount of noise from its planes.
  2. The bigger planes will also convey more passengers, and this will result in more traffic on the local roads, leading to increased levels of pollution, noise and congestion.





Campaign group supports Mayor’s bid to have final say over flight numbers at London City Airport

Press Release

14/1/15 for immediate use

Campaign group supports Mayor’s bid to have final say over flight numbers at London City Airport

The campaign group HACAN East has backed the Mayor of London’s bid to have the final say over the number of planes which are allowed to use London City Airport.  The Mayor has said in his response to the airport’s current consultation on its plans for expansion that he wants the authority to veto any future proposals to do away with existing cap of 120,000 aircraft a year.

HACAN East chair John Stewart, said, “We fully support the Mayor’s request.  It is a nonsense that one London borough, Newham, should decide how many planes can use the airport when the impact of the airport affects vast swathes of London.”

The current consultation does not involve any request by London City to increase flight numbers.  What it wants is permission to build an extended taxiway and bigger parking stands so that larger aircraft can use the airport.  It also wants to double the size of the terminal and provide more car parking spaces.

The consultation closes on Friday 23rd January, with Newham expected to make a decision later in the year.


 Notes for Editors:

 (1). HACAN East has urged Newham to reject the application because:

  1. There is no guarantee that the larger planes that will be able to use the airport if the expansion works go ahead will be quieter than the current aircraft.
  2. The bigger planes will convey more passengers.  This will result in more traffic on the local roads, leading to increased levels of pollution, noise and congestion.

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

The story so far…what happens now…how you can get involved

The details are in the posts on the website including some the archives but, in summary, the story is this:

In 2014 London City put a technical consultation document on its website saying it wanted to concentrate its landing and departure flight paths.  This means that the flight paths would be concentrated over areas like Bow, parts of Leyton, Leytonstone,Wanstead, Dagenham and parts of Havering.  In South London they would be concentrated over Eltham, Catford, Dulwich, Herne Hill, Brixton, Stockwell and Brixton.

London City only told the supine Consultative Committee about its plans.  It refused to hold public meetings, or even leaflet, the areas which would be affected.  But HACAN East and local residents groups held public meetings.  Thousands of people signed petitions.  You can still sign this petition:   Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Havering councils, as well as the London Assembly, wrote to the airport and the Civil Aviation Authority (which oversees the consultation) demanding a reconsultation.  John Cryer, the MP for Leyton and Wanstead, put down an Early Day Motion in Parliament, signed by most East London MPs, calling for the consultation to be done again.

What happens now

The consultation has now closed and the Civil Aviation Authority is considering what next.  But local people are keeping up the pressure.  Our call is for a new consultation to be run which includes the option of sharing out the flight paths rather than concentrating them all in a few areas so everybody gets some respite.

How to keep update and how to get involved

If you want to get the latest news or get involved keep checking this website or follow us on twitter @HACANEast.  Also follow the group that has been specifically set up to fight the changes:  Flight Path Changes; twitter @PathChanges.


Civil Aviation Authority seems to question City Airport’s claims over flight path consultation

The CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) seems to be questioning London City Airport’s claim that it worked with the airport in agreeing the recent controversial consultation into the airport’s plans to concentrate its flight paths.  In response to a Freedom of Information request from Alan Haughton of Stop City Airport, the CAA said “There is no written agreement between the CAA and London City Airport (LCY) in relation to the level of consultation required in respect of this potential airspace change.”

It goes on: “it remains the change sponsor’s responsibility to ensure that the appropriate level of consultation is undertaken. The CAA will then consider this as part of the decision making process when a formal request for an Airspace Change is made under Stage 5 of the Airspace Change Process.”

The full response from the CAA can be read at: …

Now that the consultation has closed the CAA has the power to order City Airport to consult again if it feels it was not done satisfactorily.  Three local councils – Redbridge, Havering and Waltham Forest – as well as the London Assembly have written to the CAA urging it to do so.  And Wanstead and Leyton MP John Cryer has put down an Early Day Motion in Parliament calling for a fresh consultation.

It is not clear at this stage when the CAA will make its decision.





Deadline for City Airport’s expansion planning application put back…..again

The deadline for the latest consultation into City Airport’s long-running planning application to expand has been put back once again.  It now is 23rd January.  This is to allow people to comment on the impact of the proposals on a new housing development – the Gallions Quarter Scheme.

City Airports wants to build taxiways that will accommodate larger planes.  It also wants to extend the terminal, create more car parking spaces and get permission for a new 260 bedroom hotel.  The application was first submitted in July 2013.

To read the application go to  and enter the Planning Application numbers 13/01228/FUL and 13/01373/OUT

Flight Path campaigners deliver a special Christmas message to London City Airport

Press Release

 16/12/14 for immediate use

 Flight Path campaigners deliver a special Christmas message to London City Airport


Campaigners against London City Airport’s plans to concentrate its flight paths delivered a Christmas message to airport chiefs today.  Eleanor de Kanter and Adam Voss handed in a gift at the airport with the message “To City Airport, Merry Christmas!  From the residents you forgot” adding, “PS We must meet up in the New Year.  We’ve got so much to catch up on!”

City Airport has come in for widespread criticism in recent months over its refusal to consult local residents over its plans to change its flight paths.  The airport wants to concentrate the flight paths over narrow corridors but refused to leaflet or hold meetings in the affected areas.  Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Havering councils, along with the London Assembly, have all asked that it carries out a fresh consultation in the New Year.

John Stewart, chair of the campaign group HACAN East, said, “The pressure on City Airport will increase in the New Year.  As Eleanor and Adam showed today, residents who face the prospect of a lot more flights will refuse to go away.”

The Civil Aviation Authority, which is now looking at the responses to the consultation, has the power to order City Airport to consult again.









What you can do now to keep the pressure on London City Airport re: its proposed flight path changes

City Airport very clearly failed to consult the residents who will be affected by its plans before the closing date of the consultation. Now it’s time to take action – if we work together, we can win this.

What can you do?

1. Write to the Civil Aviation Authority to object to how the consultation was carried out.  This is now the most important activity – below is a template you can use.  Feel free to adapt it (it will have the most impact if you use your own words) but don’t worry about copying it straight if you’re short on time or inspiration! The key thing to remember is to focus on your concerns with how the consultation was carried out, rather than why you disagree with the actual proposals.

Send your email to this address: or alternatively you can mail it to:

Airspace Business Coordinator,
Safety & Airspace Regulation Group,
CAA House, 45 – 59 Kingsway,
London, WC2B 6TE

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I would like to raise my concerns over London City Airport’s recent flight path consultation for the following reasons:

1. The proposed changes are not minor as they would greatly impact the quality of life of tens of thousands of people in a significant way:
– The flight path under discussion may well already be being used, but our understanding is that the proposals would increase traffic on this route by c. 40%.
– Additionally, the airport is not even operating at fully capacity yet and should there be any expansion, the problem will become even worse.
2. London City did not make any serious attempt to consult residents who would be affected by its proposals:
– The consultation documents were posted on an airport website and residents could not be reasonably expected to pick up information in this way (who regularly surfs an airport’s website?)
– It only told its Consultative Committee about the plans.  It did not directly tell local authorities, MPs, Greater London Authority members or local residents.
– Airport representatives only attended public meetings when they had been organised by residents, and only then in two areas (Wanstead and Leytonstone).
– Only one press release was sent out to borough newspapers, at the end of August and in a week when there was a Bank Holiday.  This is not adequate engagement with the media.
3. Minimal effort has been been made to explain the changes in a manner accessible to the layperson:
– The documents in themselves were quite technical.
– The only maps apparently available are on page 14 of a pdf, buried on City Airport’s website.
4. There has been minimal attempt to engage with the offline community:
– Older residents have expressed concern that the consultation documents could only be found online, as they either did not have internet access and/ or the skills to locate them.
– No materials were provided for this group of residents eg. posters, leaflets or copies of the consultations document left at public institutions such as libraries.

It is my strong view that the consultation which City Airport has carried out thus far is not adequate and that the airport should have been required to carry out the wider consultation (as laid out in paragraph 6.1 of your guidance).  I would request that you review this situation urgently and require City Airport to undertake the consultation afresh.

I look forward to hearing from you.


[Address  – either put your road or first part of your postcode]

2. Follow us on social media. You can add us as a friend on Facebook (we’re ‘Flight Path Changes’) or follow @PathChanges on Twitter.  We’ll post the latest updates to both Twitter and Facebook and we are planning more activity on Twitter which you can get involved in  so if you’re not already signed up to Twitter, then this could be a good reason to give it a go!

3. Tell your neighbours – as City Airport won’t do this then it’s really down to us to make as many people aware as possible.  You can help by talking to your neighbours directly, or following us on Twitter and retweeting us.  Also, if you’re a member of a local community group then tell them about the campaign!


Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, John Cryer, takes London City Airport flight path changes debate to Parliament

The pressure on London City Airport to rethink its controversial flight path changes has increased as John Cryer MP brings the debate to Parliament.

Here we reprint the story in the Wanstead Guardian by Douglas Patient. 

An MP has taken the debate on flight path changes, that “will cause misery” for people living beneath it, to Parliament.

The public consultation ended last week and London City Airport is due to make an announcement on plans before Christmas.

Under the proposal, most planes travelling to and from the airport would be installed with new navigation technology, enabling flights to use a narrower flight corridor over Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead.

But the plans and consultation process have met intense criticism, the latest of which has come in the form of Labour MP for Leyton and Wanstead, John Cryer, who put forward the early day motion in the House of Commons on Friday.

The motion read: “That this house notes with concern proposed measures by London City Airport to revise flight paths in and out of the airport; recognises that, under the proposals, air traffic will be concentrated over a narrower corridor, affecting many residents profoundly; further notes the lamentable lack of engagement with elected representatives and residents’ groups; and calls on City Airport to devise a more equitable solution to address the distribution of aircraft noise.”

It was seconded by five other MPs serving London, and signed by two more, by far the most popular motion of the morning.

Speaking about the issue, Mr Cryer said: “Dozens of residents have been moved to contact me regarding the misery this will cause and I have written twice to the airport chief executive, asked for an adjournment debate and put down an early day motion condemning the proposals and the frankly inadequate consultation.

Strong calls for rethink on flight path.
New flight paths will affect ‘tens of thousands’.
Campaigners fear noise ghetto will result from…
“I am pleased to see councillors in Wanstead and Waltham Forest taking action against these unwanted changes.”

Redbridge council passed a motion calling on a fresh consultation to take place, and campaigners organised two public meetings in Wanstead and Leytonstone over the last few weeks.

London City Airport has said that it has been following Civil Aviation Authority guidelines on consultation “to the letter”.

Councils put pressure London City Airport to reconsult on flight paths

Local councils have added more pressure on London City Airport to reconsult on their controversial plans to concentrate their flight paths.  Redbridge Council unanimously voted through this motion calling for a fresh consultation.  Waltham Forest have written to the airport along similar lines.  And last night Havering passed this motion:

“Given the need to assess in detail any potential impact of the proposed changes to flight paths from City Airport as part of the London Airspace Management Programme, this Council calls upon:

  1. a) the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to extend the consultation period in respect of the proposed London Airspace Management Programme to 31st January 2015 in order to inform opinion and give Havering residents a greater opportunity to engage in the consultation process.
  2. b) City Airport operators to provide greater detail to local stakeholders in terms of flight numbers, noise levels and Co2 emissions as a result of the legal mandate which requires all aircraft to be equipped with Area Navigation technology and to operate in revised airspace by 2020.

 If you are interested in the full debate which took place at the Havering Council meeting, it can be viewed here (20:47):