Secretary of State for Communitiesand Local Government
Planning and Housing Division
9th Floor
Riverwalk House
157-161 Millbank
London, SW1P 4RR

Date 2008

Dear Secretary of State

Re: London City Airport Application to increase flights to 120,000 per year – with Newham Council.

[I/WE] would like to kindly request that the above planning application is called in for a public inquiry for the following reasons:

  1. Newham Council have not carried out a full and fair consultation. In fact many residents, across many boroughs, who will be severely affected by increased noise levels are still not aware of the application. Newham initially consulted just a 1.5 Kilometer area south of the A13. This is quite astounding as the PSZ, Noise Contour and the 13 km safeguarding map clearly show which areas, as a basic minimum, would need to be consulted.
  1. It was only with the intervention of Fight the Flights, in the shape ofa formal complaint to Greenwich Council Planning that Newham Council sent out an additional estimated 10,000 letters to residents in the Thamesmead Moorings Ward, Greenwich. This was after Newham had refused to consult with anyone outside of their borough other than sending an information pack to the boroughs council. However this small victory for Thamesmead Moorings did not extend to anywhere else and it is only correct that all boroughs residents affected be consulted fully and equally.
  1. [I/WE] believe that Newham Council has an incomplete planning application from London City Airport (LCA) by way of the absence of a full non PSZ safety evaluation of the 13 km safeguarding zone, little mention to the risk of birdstrike in an area which has high levels of gulls (identified by the CAA as of high risk to bird strike) which are further encouraged by 2 sewage plants within a mile of the airport, a recycling station and also a mooted anaerobic digestion plant planned at West Thamesmead. None of these points are mentioned to [MY/OUR] knowledge.
  1. Public Safety Zone: residents who will be in the new PSZ will not know this unless they have looked at the PSZ maps in the application. [I/WE] am informed that the DfT only notifies residents in an expanding PSZ every 7 years of this. Therefore residents will unwittingly find themselves with a property in an area which is at high risk of fall out from a major aviation incident. This may affect their insurance and the ability to place a mortgage on their property.
  1. Wake turbulence is not addressed: this is common on still days at each end of the runway in the PSZ. Wake turbulence damages buildings and [WE/I] have been advised by the CAA that the freeholder would have to sue the airline if damage occurs over a period of years.
  1. [I/WE] believe that ALL households in the 13km safeguarding area are entitled to be consulted – and yet they have not been so. In addition the nature and content of the application is so technical, often not possible to access due to Newham’s online site being down has denied residents accessing the application. Essentially the documents are so incomplete, and technical that it is challenging for the few that have read through them to understand them.
  1. Newham have continued to allow LCA to sponsor adverts for their borough during the time of the consultation – and we feel that this has displayed a clear conflict of interest at a sensitive time. [I/WE] would have thought that impartiality would have been appropriate during the consultation period.
  1. Noise/pollution management & complaints. LondonCityAirport regularly ‘lose’ complaints. In addition none of their estimated noise measurements for this application are reliable in any sense. It is documented that they have noise receptors that have run out of battery power and have not been active for long periods of time, others are not in appropriate places, the same is applicable to pollution monitoring. Newham Council appear to have little lead in enforcing the noise management responsibilities that they hold as LCA’s Borough Council.
  1. Noise mitigation: due to the inaccurate figures that the current and future noise contours are mapped on – many households are already suffering from excessive levels of aircraft noise. Yet many of these households have not been offered any noise measurement services by LCA or Newham, and LCA seem to have been allowed to cherry pick a few streets which are nearest to the airport. Aircraft noise in [INSERT POSTCODE] for instance ranges from the mid [insert min dbs] to the [insert max dbs]. It is estimated by LCA that over 26,000 residents will be in the 57dbLaeq noise contour – this estimate is probably on the modest side but is still huge. This means that 1000s of residents will not be able to open their windows for the constant roar of jet engines at 90 second intervals upon any expansion.
  1. Pollution: scant referral is made to the health of residents living around the airport – for instance no reference is made to the fact that Newham has the highest mortality rate from asthma in the under 30s than any other borough in England. Asthma is known to be connected to pollution. High pollution levels measured at LCA were blamed on the ‘wind direction’.

This appalling treatment of residents, across the boroughs is woeful and can only be seen as having stripped them of any democracy. FTF feels that democracy has been abused and overlooked. And it is not for the first time: in January 2007 Newham approved an application by LCA to change how many flights they can put out in any one day – basically meaning they have a weekly quota but if they wish to fly out 80% on any one day they can. Again, nobody was consulted on that application – and we did not know that any change had been agreed until [I/WE] started to notice that the increase in proportion of category A jets and also the frequency of 90 second take off and landing for longer periods on the busiest days. [I/WE] first noticed this in the Spring of 2007 and found that we were unable to have windows open at all during those busy times and that the noise from the aircraft, for the first time in 2 years, worried us considerably.

Therefore in view of this information (which is by no means complete or fully inclusive of all the issues of the consultation ‘farce’) [WE/I] kindly request that you call the application in for a public inquiry.

Yours sincerely