City campaigns unite with Heathrow and Gatwick to call for residents’ voice to be heard over flight path changes

WP_20150601_11_22_54_Pro

Campaigners from London City joined those from Heathrow and Gatwick air today to deliver a joint letter  to Patrick McLoughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, demanding a voice for residents in flight path changes which are expected to be introduced over the next few years.  Campaigners have asked for a meeting with the Transport Secretary.

Read the letter here: Gatwick Heathrow and City Airport Flight Path Letter to DfT

The letter is not about new runways.  There are differences amongst the campaigners on whether a new runway is needed and, if so, where it should be.

The move followers anger from residents at the changes to flight paths which have taken place over the last couple of years. Protest groups have sprung up around Gatwick in response to the changes to both arrival and departure routes.  The recent trials at Heathrow sparked a record number of complaints.  And in East London furious residents staged public meetings at not being proper consulted about London City’s proposals to concentrate flight paths.

The airspace changes are part of a Europe-wide programme to make more effective use of airspace and are now impacting the whole of the UK.  They are designed to enable airlines to save fuel, to allow aircraft to land at and depart from airports more efficiently.   In the UK Gatwick and London City have been earmarked as first in line for the changes.  Heathrow is expected to have its changes in place by 2019 with national changes by 2020.

Residents fear that the changes will result in excessive concentration of aircraft along selected routes.  They are particularly critical of NATS (National Air Traffic Control) and the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), the two organizations who are driving the changes.

John Stewart, who chairs HACAN East, the organisation which gives a voice to residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said, “NATS and CAA are remote from residents.  They plan these flight path changes in their hi-tec ivory towers.  Our letter to the Transport Secretary contains positive proposals for flight paths that could work for both the industry and for residents.  They involve providing all residents with some respite from the noise.  HACAN is actively engaging with Heathrow to see what can be done.  But it does require NATS and the CAA to play ball”.

Stewart added, “London City Airport have been much less willing to engage with us and seem content to simply do what NATS asks them even if it means the creation of noise ghettos.”

 

London City Airport appeals to Secretary of State against Mayor’s refusal to grant permission to expand

Press Release

 19/5/15 for immediate use

 London City Airport appeals to Secretary of State against Mayor’s refusal to grant permission to expand

London City Airport has announced that is has appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government against the refusal by London Mayor to grant it planning permission to expand.  The appeal is likely to be heard in about five months time.

Earlier this year Boris Johnson overturned Newham Council’s decision to grant the airport permission to create more taxiway space to allow bigger aircraft to use the airport.  City was also given permission to double the size of its terminal and create more car parking spaces.  But the Mayor turned it down because he believed that the airport was not prepared to give sufficient compensation to residents who would suffer noise.

The expansion plans had proved controversial, with a large number of objections coming from residents and a number of local authorities.

John Stewart, chair of HACAN East, which helped co-ordinate much of the opposition, said, “It is not surprising London City has appealed because they are very keen to get the space to allow bigger planes to use the airport.  But we hope the Secretary of State turns down the appeal and backs Boris who stood up for residents whose lives have become blighted by noise from the airport.”

The grounds of appeal are set out here: FULL STATEMENT OF CASE – STATEMENT OF CASE 15 5 15 FINAL

ENDS

 For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Newham Council lacks the bravery of Boris to turn down unsuitable developments like City Airport expansion

by John Stewart

26/4/15

Yesterday I had a great time with the local people who live in the Royal Docks close to London City Airport.  We were having a little ‘do’ to celebrate the fact that the London Mayor Boris Johnson had overturned Newham Council’s decision to grant permission for the airport to expand.

As I watched the children playing and the local choir singing, I couldn’t help reflect on the odd situation:  a Conservative Mayor had helped this community – not natural Tory voters I suspect – to defeat the airport’s environmentally-destructive plans backed by a Labour council, the party which has traditionally supported low-income communities.

City Airport celebration

 Now Newham will argue that the airport brings jobs for local people as well as local economic benefits.  In fact, it provides little of either.  No more than about 500 Newham residents are employed directly by the airport and few of the business people – the market the airport largely serves – stop off for a ‘Big Breakfast’ at the local cafes as their cab speeds them to their meeting in the City or the West End.

 It was clear at Saturday’s event that the local community regards the airport on their doorstep not as a benefit but as problem which brings noise, air pollution and blight.  They feel they would be better off with something else there.  And, indeed, that would make economic sense. City Airport contributes £750 million each year to the UK economy.  The nearby Excel Centre, which occupies roughly the same amount of space as the airport, contributes £1.3 billion.  The airport employs the equivalent of 1,900 full-time jobs.  The proposed Silvertown Quays development, just along the road, estimates it will employ 9,000.

Newham Council lacks the imagination or the bravery to consider an alternative to the airport.  No one questions its sincerity in wanting to bring work to the borough.  But the way it has gone about it has blighted the lives of so many of its residents.  And of those living in adjoining boroughs.   Newham has championed City Airport since its inception in the 1980s, backed the destructive M11 Link Road in the 1990s and allowed Westfield Shopping Centre, to provide 5,000 car parking spaces in the noughties.

And with little effect.  In 2000 Newham  ranked as the 5th most deprived borough in the country; in 2004, the 6th; in 2007, it slipped to the 2nd most deprived; rising to 8th in 2011.

Its policies have not brought the dreamed-of prosperity.  What they have brought, though, is blight to so many people’s lives, whether it’s the noise and pollution from the airport or the roar of traffic on the M11.

I wrote in my book Why Noise Matters, published by Earthscan in 2011, “The high noise levels in many poor areas are caused, at least in part, by the activities of much wealthier people.  Poor people have no cars to drive on the roaring new motorways which cut an ugly swathe through their fragile communities.  The congestion on the city streets is not of their making.  The flash new airports are not for them.  They are the victims of other people’s lifestyles”. I was writing about the emerging economies of the world.  I could have been writing about Newham.  Only a tiny proportion of the borough’s residents have ever used the airport.

Newham needs to get smart about development.  The other political parties which opposed the expansion – the Conservatives, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats – as well as other Labour councils are not against development.  They have simply got the self-confidence to say no to proposals, like the expansion of City Airport, which blight people’s lives.

In the 17th century the famous Scottish poet Robert Burns started his poem To a Mouse with these words, “wee, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie”.   He could have been describing Newham Council under Robin Wales, its mayor for the last 20 years, who hails from the same part of Scotland as Burns.  Newham has been so ‘tim’rous and fearful that it won’t get jobs and prosperity that it has grasped at any development however environmentally destructive it might be.

Perhaps Labour in Newham needs recapture the Victorian values the labour movement had in its early days when it regarded an improved environment as important as raising the wages of the working-class or extending the right to vote.  There was no division between environment, employment and democracy.

Unless and until it does, it is Boris, not Robin Wales, who will be the toast of the people’s party in the Royal Docks.

Official statistics underestimate the levels of aircraft noise in east and south east London

                                                                                                                    6th April 2015 for immediate use

 Official statistics underestimate the levels of aircraft noise in east and south east London, according to the campaign group HACAN East.  Just a week after the London Mayor Boris Johnson refused London City permission to expand on the grounds of noise, HACAN East has complained that the noise from City Airport aircraft and those heading to Heathrow are measured separately and not added together.

John Stewart, who chairs HACAN East, said, “We need to get a figure for the total noise if we are to get a picture of the real noise levels experienced by residents.  In the areas of east and south east London where people get planes from both London City and Heathrow noise levels will be a lot higher than official statistics show.”

A report published in 2007 (1) found that “in some areas of East London flown over by both Heathrow planes and City Airport noise levels were comparable to those in parts of West London”.  Two years ago the Greater London Assembly called for joint readings to be taken.

Stewart concluded, “It is not rocket science to assess the cumulative noise.  The suspicion remains that it suits the aviation industry not to paint the full picture.”

ENDS

 Notes for Editors:

 (1).  http://hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/hacan.flight.paths.study.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would London City Airport be so cavalier in dealing with its residents if they were richer?

2nd April 2015

by John Stewart

Last week the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, turned down City Airport’s application to expand on noise grounds.  Although the decision caught people by surprise, there was a widespread feeling that the airport had it coming because of the cavalier way it has dealt with residents, local authorities and elected politicians over the years.  I spelt this out in an opinion piece for the Newham Recorder: http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/?p=643

 The question must arise:  would City Airport’s attitude have been different if it was dealing with a wealthier population?  We will never know for sure it certainly impacts on some of the poorest communities in the UK.

According to the latest Indices of Deprivation (2010), Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest are among 15 most deprived local authorities in the country. And Barking and Dagenham, Greenwich, Lewisham and Lambeth make it into the top 50.  Moreover, Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets have highest percentage of deprived people in the UK (1).

They will also be the communities which fly the least.  They are the victims of what Les Blomberg, the executive director of the US-based Noise Pollution Clearing House called ‘second-hand noise’:  “noise that is experienced by people who did not produce it.  Like second-hand smoke, it’s put into the environment without people’s consent and then has effects on them that they don’t have any control over.”

A good neighbour would tailor its strategy, and particularly its communications, to the needs of its communities.  In areas of real deprivation, variable online skills and limited access to technology, a good neighbour would ensure it provided plenty of leaflets and regular face-to-face meetings with the public.  It would make sure its materials were written in clear, simple language.

London City simply does not do this.  The recent consultation on its plans to concentrate its flight paths over particular communities was a prime example.  The consultation took the form of putting a technical document on its website and of informing its supine consultative committee.  Nothing more.  No leafleting of the areas that would be affected.  And by only consulting online, City Airport effectively disenfranchised a huge number of people.  Across the UK, 21% of people can’t operate online, but amongst C2, D and E classes it is 72%; and for those in 65+ bracket it is 52% (2).

 It is hard to avoid the conclusion that London City Airport, rather than trying to tailor its work to meet the needs of the area it impacts, is using the demographics of the area to get away with doing as little as possible.

 References:

(1). http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/indices-multiple-deprivation-poverty-england).

 (2). Media Literacy: Understanding Digital Capabilities follow-up; Ipsos Mori, 2014

Why Boris was right to refuse City Airport expansion

Opinion piece written by John Stewart, chair HACAN East, for the Newham Recorder

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/home/big_debate_should_london_city_airport_s_expansion_have_been_denied_1_4016723

 Boris Johnson’s decision to refuse London City permission to expand may have come as a surprise but it was always on the cards that somebody would stand up to the airport.  London City is paying the price about being so cavalier about noise.

It has a history of refusing to engage with residents and elected councillors over its plans.  Last year it came up with proposals to concentrate its flight paths over certain communities yet it refused to leaflet the areas involved or come to talk with any local authority except Newham. Residents were frustrated, councillors were furious and the Greater London Authority wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport criticizing the airport’s behaviour.

In turning down the expansion application, the London Mayor showed he simply did not believe London City’s claims that an expanded airport, using larger planes, would mean less noise.

Newham is the one borough which has consistently – and controversially – backed the airport.  It does so on the basis it provides jobs.  In fact, the number of people employed by the airport is surprising small, less than 1,000, with another 2,000 or so jobs indirectly dependent on it.

Since the Mayor’s decision, London City spin doctors have gone into overdrive citing jobs that would be created by the expansion plans.  Be very wary! There are less jobs at the airport now than in 2009 when it said it would create 1,500.

The airport’s lack of honesty – be it about noise or jobs – has proved its downfall.  Local people, elected councillors and the Mayor of London simply don’t believe what it says.  Unless it cleans up it act, people may start to question whether East London needs it at all.  It has become the embarrassing relative amongst the exciting new developments which are taking place in the Royal Docks.

 

Boris refuses City Airport’s plan to expand

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has refused London City Airport’s plan to expand on noise grounds.  In a letter he has instructed Newham Council, who had approved the application, to refuse it.  Newham’s decision was always dependent on the Mayor’s approval.

Read the Mayor’s decision: LCA 3031 Stage 2 Letter – Refusal (26 March 2015)

London City Airport wanted permission to build new taxiways to permit larger planes to use the airport.  It also wanted more car parking spaces.  The decision will be a bitter blow to the airport as it will now no longer be able to bring in the larger planes it wanted to serve new destinations.

John Stewart, chair of HACAN East, which campaigned against the expansion plans, said “The airport is paying the price for being so cavalier about noise.  Quite simply, Boris did not believe its claims that it was dealing adequately with noise.  We salute his decision”

ENDS

For more information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

 

Key constituencies impacted by London City Airport and 2015 General Election candidates

Key constituencies impacted by London City Airport

Scroll down for details of hustings meetings

 2015 General Election candidates

Should you want to write to them about City Airport – maybe about its plans to concentrate the flight paths or about its plans to expand to allow bigger aircraft to use the airport – here is the list of candidates standing in the key constituencies, with their email addresses where we have them.

 Bethnal Green and Bow

Ali Rushanara MP       Lab        rushanara@rushanaraali.org

Matthew Smith            Con         matt4bgb@gmail.com

Teena Lushmore        Lib Dems

Alastair Polson          Green       dan.lee@towerhamlets.greenparty.org.uk

 Poplar and Limehouse

Jim Fitzpatrick MP      Lab        fitzpatrickj@parliament.uk

Christopher Wilford     Con        wilford2015@gmail.com

Elaine Bagshaw           Lib Dem

Maureen Childes        Green Party

 Leyton and Wanstead

John Cryer MP         Lab        john.cryer@unitetheunion.com

Matthew Scott          Con         matthew.scott@leytonandwanstead.co.uk

Martin Levin            UKIP       martinlevin@hotmail.co.uk

Ashley Gunstock    Green      ashley.gunstock@btinternet.com

Carl Quillian          Lib Dem

 East Ham

Stephen Timms MP Labour    stephen@stephentimmsorg.uk

Tamsin Omond     Green        tamsin.omond@greenparty.org.uk

Samir Jassal        Con

Lois Austin          TUSC

West Ham

Lyn Brown MP   Lab             lyn@lynbrown.org.uk

Festus Akinbbusoye Con     festus@fest4westham.com

Jane Lithgow    Green         jane.lithgow@greenparty.org.uk

Paul Reynolds Lib Dems     paulemreynolds@gmail.com

 Ilford North

Lee Scott MP  Con           scottl@parliament.uk

Wes Streeting Lab            wes@redbridgelabour.org.uk

Philip Hyde     UKIP

 Ilford South

Mike Gapes MP   Lab       mike@mikegapes.org.uk

Chris Chapman  Con       cllrchrischapman@gmail.com

Amjad Khan       UKIP

Hornchurch

Angela Watkinson MP  Con  info@hx-upmtory.com

Paul McGeary     Lab

Lawrence Webb  UKIP        lawrencewebb@btinternet.com

Melanie Collins   Green       melanie.collins@greenparty.org.uk

 Barking

Margaret Hodge MP Lab   hodgem@parliament.uk

Mina Rahman          Con   mina@londonconservatives.com

Tony Ford Rablen   Green

Roger Gravett         UKIP

Joseph Mambuliga  TUSC

Romford

Andrew Rosindell MP  Con andrew@rosindell.com

Sam Gould            Lab       samualcgould@gmail.com

Gerard Batten       UKIP    gerard.batten@europarl.europe.eu

Lorna Jane Tooley Green  lorna.tooley@greenparty.org.uk

 Dagenham and Rainham

Jon Cruddas MP  Lab    jon@dagenhamandrainhamlabour.org.uk

Peter Harris         UKIP  info@peterharrisukip.com

Kate Simpson     Green  kate.simpson@greenparty.org.uk

 Eltham

Clive Efford MP  Lab       clive@cliveefford.org.uk

Alex Cunliffe     Lib Dem   Alex4Eltham@gmail.com

Peter Whittle   UKIP        info@peterwhittle.org

Spencer Drury  Con       spencer@spencerdrury.com

 Lewisham East

Heidi Alexander MP  Lab   heidi@heidialexander.org.uk

Peter Fortune    Con          peter@peterfortune.co.uk

Julia Fletcher   Lib Dem    julia.fletcher@virginmedia.com

Storm Poorun Green       storm.poorun@greenparty.org.uk

 Lewisham West

Jim Dowd MP   Lab      jimdowd.newlabour@care4free.net

Russell Jackson  Con   russell@russel-jackson.co.uk

Tom Chance  Green    tom.chance@greenparty.org.uk

Alex Feakes Lib Dem  alex@alexfeakes.org

Martin Powell  TUSC

 Bermondsey and Old Southwark

Simon Hughes MP    Lib Dem     simon@simonnhughes.org.uk

Neil Coyle                Lab            neil.coyle@neilcoyle.org.uk

Jean-Paul Flora      Con            jpflora@gmail.com

Rosamind Beattie    UKIP

William Lavin          Green

April Ashley            TUSC

 Lewisham Deptford

Vicky Foxcroft      Lab      vickyfoxcroft@hotmail.com

Birn Afolami         Con       birmafolami2@gmail.com

Michael Bukola     Lib Dem michaelbukola@hotmail.com

John Coughlin    Green     cllr_john.coughlin@lewisham.gov.uk

Chris Flood       TUSC

 Dulwich and West Norwood

Helen Hayes   Lab          helen@helenhayes.org.uk

Resham Kotecha   Con   resham4dwn@gmail.com

James Barber  Lib Dem  cllrjamesbarber@gmail.com

Rathy Alagarathan  UKIP

Rashid Nix            Green

Steve Nally          TUSC

Vauxhall

Kate Hoey MP   Lab         hoeyk@parliament.uk

Adrian Trett      Lib Dem   Adrian.trett@gmail.com

James Bellis    Con         vca@tory.org

Gulnar Hasnain   Green   gulnar.asnain@greenparty.org.uk

Greenwich

Matthew Pennycook Lab matthew@matthewpennycook.com

Matt Hartley            Con  matt@matthartley.org.uk

Ryan Acty              UKIP ryan@ryanacty.org.uk

Abbey Akinoshun   Green  hello@abbey4mp.org

Hustings Meetings (as we know them)

HUSTINGS Barking

HUSTINGS Bethnal Green

HUSTINGS Dagenham

HUSTINGS Eltham

HUSTINGS Greenwich & Woolwich

HUSTINGS Hornchurch

HUSTINGS Ilford North

HUSTINGS Ilford South

Leyton and Wanstead

25th April: 11am Wanstead Library, Spratt Hall Rd, E11 2RQ

29th April: 7.30 for 8pm, St John’s Church, Church Lane, Leytonstone

Hustings Lewisham Deptford

HUSTINGS Lewisham East

HUSTINGS Lewisham West & Penge

HUSTINGS Poplar

HUSTINGS Romford

HUSTINGS Walthamstow

HUSTINGS West Ham