Newham Council extends London City Airport expansion application until December 18th 2013
Posted on October 30, 2013
30/10/13
In a tacit admission of the failings in the orginal process – different deadlines given to different people; its website going down on the last three days before the orginal deadline (Monday 28th October) – Newham Council has extended the London City Airport expansion application until December 18th 2013. It says it is due to overwhelming demand from local people who wish to make representations.
Responses already submitted will still be included in the new deadline.
A Newham Council spokesperson said:
"We know these are major planning applications and we already had a significant response by 28 October. We have extended the deadline until 18 December to ensure as many local people and wider stakeholders as possible can make their voices heard."
Local Campaigner Alan Haughton, who did so much to expose the failings in the orginal process, said:
“We welcome the fact the Newham council has listened to residents and extended the consultation. The impacts of the expansion by London City Airport will affect the local area for generations to come so it is of the utmost importance to make sure we all get our voices heard".
Questions must be be asked why it was left to local campaigners to expose the flaws in the consultation. Where was the supine London City Airport Consultative Committee which is meant to keep a watching brief on behalf of local people?
Newham release announcing the new deadline:
-----------------------------------------------
Airport expansion plans will double the numbers affected by aircraft noise
Posted on October 28, 2013
Press Release
embargoed until 28/10/13
London City Airport expansion plans ‘conflict with Mayor’s plans to develop East London’ claim campaigners on day consultation ends
Campaigners claim that London City Airport’s proposals to expand will conflict will Boris Johnson’s plans to develop East London. The expansion proposals will also almost double the number of households officially disturbed by aircraft noise.
The consultation on the airport’s application to expand closes today. Newham Council, the planning authority, is expected to make a decision within the next few months. London City wants permission to increase the size of the airport in order to allow bigger planes to use it on a daily basis. These larger planes could bring in an extra 6 million passengers a year.
The proposals include:
- An extension to the taxiway
- Bigger parking stands, including seven new ones, to allow for bigger aircraft
- A larger terminal building
- A new hotel
- An almost 30% increase in car parking spaces– from 974 to 1,252
In total the airport would extend from 48.5 hectares to 60.6 hectares.
The proposal to deck over at least 7.54 Hectares (31%) of King George V Dock conflicts with the London Mayor’s policy for the Thames, the so-called Blue Ribbon Network policy. The London Plan states development proposals should enhance the Blue Ribbon Network and, crucially, states: “the BRN should not be used as an extension to the developable land in London.”
The expansion proposals also create a larger Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone). Most types of new development, particularly housing, are not permitted with crash zones around airports. Campaigners calculate that up to 21 projected housing developments might need to be withdrawn if permission is given to extend the airport. The land safeguarded for the Silvertown Tunnel, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, would also fall within the new crash zone.
The proposals will also worsen the noise climate for local residents. The number of dwellings officially impacted by noise will increase from 8,300 to over15,000 by 2023.
Alan Haughton local resident and spokesman for HACAN East, said, “Not only will these proposal mean more noise for local people, they could also stunt much-needed development in the rest of East London. We are calling on Newham Council to reject the proposals. If it doesn’t we will be asking Boris Johnson to use his powers to ‘call-in’ the application so the wider implications for London as a whole can be seriously examined.”
See HACAN East response in the previous post
ENDS
----------------------------------------------
HACAN East response to City Airport expansion consultation
Posted on October 28, 2013
London City Airport Expansion Applications
CADP1 (planning application 13/01228/FUL) and CADP2 (planning
application 13/0 1373/OUT).
Response from HACAN East (27/10/13)
HACAN East – www.hacaneast.org.uk – represents residents under the Heathrow and City Airport flight paths. It particularly covers East and SE London. It is the sister organisation of the well-established HACAN – www.hacan.org.uk – which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths.
HACAN East objects to these applications and calls on Newham Council to reject them. We set out our reasons below.
History
In July 2009 Newham approved an expansion in the number of flights to a total of 120,000 noise factored movements. It accepted that 3.9 million passengers could be accommodated in the existing infrastructure. At that time it was not considered necessary to provided additional infrastructure. The Environmental Statement that accompanied the 2009 application 07/01510/VAR adopted a central assumption of 95,000 scheduled movements and 25,000 jet centre movements (private jets).
Objections
1. The proposal to deck over at least 7.54 Hectares (31%) of King George V Dock conflicts with the London Mayor’s policy for the Thames, the so-called Blue Ribbon Network policy. The London Plan states development proposals should enhance the Blue Ribbon Network and, crucially, states: “the BRN should not be used as an extension to the developable land in London.” Moreover, The Royal Docks Management Authority (RODMA) have adopted a development strategy for the next 15 years which it states its purpose is to shape the regeneration of the Royal Docks by putting the water assets first (my emphasis) and, in doing so, increase the value of the land assets in the process. These applications conflict with that.
2. The expansion proposals create a larger Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone). Most types of new development, particularly housing, are not permitted within crash zones around airports. It has been calculated that up to 21 projected housing developments might need to be withdrawn if permission is given to extend the airport. The economic and social impact of this has not been assessed and that would need to be done.
· The land safeguarded for the Silvertown Tunnel, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, would also fall within the new crash zone.
3. It is possible that the expansion of City Airport may get in the way of other developments which create more jobs. The CADP proposal claims it will support 910 direct onsite FTE jobs in 2023. For every hectare of the Royal Dock it covers, 70 jobs will be created. By comparison it is estimated the proposed Chinese Business Hub, occupying a similar land-take (14 hectares) will create 20,000 jobs (1,428 jobs per hectare). Without the expansion the airport will support approximately 43 jobs per hectacre; with the expansion it rises to 48. We are not necessarily suggesting that the Chinese development will not proceed if the expansion of the airport goes ahead. Our point is that the Council needs to undertake a comprehensive assessment of what job-creating developments (including residential developments) might not be possible, or might be deterred, by the proposed expansion of the airport.
4. The proposals will also worsen the noise climate for local residents. The number of dwellings officially impacted by noise will increase from 8,300 to over15,000 by 2023. But, since many of the people disturbed by noise live outside the 57dbLeq contour or even outside the 55Lden contour, in reality the number will be much higher. The number of flights at ‘peak’ times could increase from 36 to 45 per hour, which is the equivalent of one every 90 seconds.
· The Council needs to ask why London City Airport has used the American FAA INM model in drawing up the noise contours. It has not used the model which we believe may be required by the Civil Aviation Authority. There is a particular irony in that the owners of Gatwick Airport, who also own London City, have in their submission to the Airports Commission been very critical of Heathrow using the FAA INM model when drawing up its evidence to the Commission. The models can produce very different results on an absolute basis, and potentially on a relative basis as well. This is because, whilst they use the same base algorithm, the assumptions built into the CAA model are based on actual data of flight profiles and noise impacts for an airport, whilst the FAA use theoretical assumptions.
5. Many residents also live under the Heathrow flight paths. Contours showing the cumulative impact of both Heathrow and City airport still have not been done. Until they are done, it is impossible to get an accurate picture of the real noise levels experienced by residents.
6. The claims of City Airport that the new jets will be quieter than the current generation of large jets using the airport are unproven. It should, therefore, be disregarded by the Council. But the Council needs to examine what the Airport is really claiming. Close examination of the proposal suggests that of the 19,406 flights gained by CADP only 31% may be quieter modern jets. 13,375 could be presumed to be as loud/or louder.
7. The impact of the increased number of passengers will have adverse affects on the noise and air pollution in the local area. The expansion of the airport will see passenger numbers rise to 6 million by 2023 (4 million without expansion) compared to 3 million in 2012. Car parking will increase from 974 spaces to 1,252 (+29%) and the taxi feeder rank will increase from 200 spaces to 320. There will be considerable strain put on the local road network (and on the DLR). Noise and air pollution levels will rise on the local roads. Air pollution levels in some areas may well rise above the EU legal limits.
Our final comment concerns the quality of Newham’s consultation. It has been poor.
· Different closing dates were given. Emails sent to consultees on Thursday, 26 September 2013 were given 21 days to respond to the application, making the closing date for comments 16/10/13. Letters sent to consultees on 7th of October give a closing date of 28/10/13. Public notification on lampposts dated the 7th of October gave a closing date of 28/10/13. All notifications directed consultees to the website to respond. It shows that the consultation closing date was the 14/10/13 and site notice expiry date was 16/10/13 not the 28/10/13 as stated on site notices.
· The online method of responding was unnecessarily complex. On-line consultations from most other bodies are much more straightforward. Many people complained to us that the online system either was not working or was inoperable.
· It was almost impossible to find or view hard copies of the consultation.
John Stewart
Chair HACAN East
