What it’s like living with City Airport

Think before you fly

In 2009 Newham residents Dot and Barry Palmer were invited to give a speech at City Hall about life under London City Airport. The airport has been granted planning permission to further raise the limit on the number of flights – from 73,000 to 120,000 per year. [This is Charles Buchanan's legacy - he is proud of having got this through without a Public Inquiry.]

Their speech in full:

Dot Palmer: We were born and we lived all our lives in Newham. We came from a long line of poor working families. We lived with two daughters in a small flat in appalling conditions. By that I mean we had no electricity, we had no toilet facilities, and all social services wanted to do was take the children away, but we fought them and we ended up moving into a pre-fab in 1970 because they had to re-house us. Kim was 2 and Collette was 6 months. It was one of the various pre-fab estates across Beckton that were built just after 1945. Social housing was the only option then – private rental was far too expensive and buying didn’t even enter into people’s heads. Home-owning was a fantasy land where fairies come from. But life there was good – then. It was a nice place to live, albeit rather remote. We soon learned 2 standing jokes of the area: on one hand it was like living in the country, on the other hand we were known as the forgotten people on Devil’s Island.

Barry Palmer: Redevelopment in the area began in 1976 and our estate was demolished. We moved to another area in East Beckton. By now we had two boys – Bobby was four and Tony was 2. It was still a nice place to live – we even had a farm at the bottom of our garden. Newham was having a new show estate built by the docks to re-house all the displaced people in the area. This was our first brush with the authorities. The tenants protested about the pile-driving that went on all hours, day and night, seven days a week.

In 1981 this area was also demolished. We had no idea that was going to happen, and we had to move again.  We were moved on to the new show estate, and our council house was so new the decorators were still working when we moved in.

Years later developments began that would change the quality of our lives forever. When the airport was first suggested, in one of the most densely populated areas of the country, it was ignored as the raving of a lunatic – in much the same way as the airport in the middle of the Thames is viewed now. But soon the whole asylum turned out saying what a wonderful idea it would be.

Dot Palmer: Locals lobbied against it from the start. We didn’t believe all the PR they told us, and that still continues today as they all prove to be lies.  Each time our quality of life got worse. Using your garden in the summer during the day is out of the question. It was too noisy and the smell choked you. Even having the doors or the windows open was a no-no. When we complained we were told “get some fans”. Washing can’t go out on the line because it smelt of aerofuel, and we were told “get a dryer”. I pointed out that fresh air is free, and it would drain our resources. But all to no avail.

People’s lives changed to adapt to this intrusion. Chatting to a neighbour in the street, you automatically paused in the conversation when a plane went over. And then you carried on again afterwards, even without realising you were doing it. And then they have the bird-scarer which bangs and shocks you out of bed at 6.30 in the morning. In 1998 we were promised to have some evergreen arboreal tree barrier, and we helped plant it last year.

Barry Palmer: And when the City Airport stops, the DLR starts. The maintenance trains rattle up and down all hours of the night. You know when they’re coming because the tannoys on the station tell you. Apart from weekends when you can’t hear them because the boy racers use the Docklands spine road as a racetrack. The DLR was originally to be elevated all the way. We protested against the infringement on people’s privacy. Underground was out of the question because of the cost. So the compromise was made: it was going to be in a cut and cover. More lies – we got the cut, we’re still waiting for the cover.

Likewise the Docklands Spine Road. Originally the Docklands Spine Road was going to be a dual carriageway using the road outside our houses as one side of the dual carriageway  – a footpath away from where the children come out into the street. Again protest, again a compromise and it was built further south.

These developments in pursuit of the great god money have brought little value to most of the local people, with the City Airport being the worst offender – a little surprising when the average wage of City Airport users is £185,000 a year.  A single parking space in London City Airport earns more money than 30,000 families in Newham. Local pollution is 50% higher than EU recommendations.  The area has the highest mortality rate for under-30s in the country. It is in the top 3 in the country for cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases, asthma being at the top. Myself and two of our children are long-term sufferers.

We have gone from 30,000 whisper jets a year to 120,000 jets and they are now even boasting a 100-seater to New York. Many thousands of jobs promised have never materialised, but the greatest cost has been to the quality of life of the local communities and the impacts on the environment as a whole

Dot Palmer: We always worked locally trying to make things better, serving on residents and tenants committees, setting up a neighbourhood watch and the Safer Neighbourhood policing team. We still are school governors and we set up and run a local youth watch club for ten years – voluntary I might add. Unknown to us, we were nominated – and then presented with – two of the first twelve Good Citizen awards for our youth work.

But now the Beckton we loved and where we raised our family is no more. The communities are almost gone, the old neighbours either passed on or moved away. What we have now is a transit camp, a car park, and a dumping ground. The area has now been left to go to ruin. What price progress? 40 years on, and we still are a forgotten people.

---

Thanks to Climate Rush

Manston: there's no fine print to read

The new night flights proposal from Manston contains just two rules that matter: how many planes, and how noisy. What will happen when Manston breaks the rules?

Absolutely nothing.

Manston has removed all the penalty clauses from their proposal.

In the autumn of 2010 when Manston came out with a proposal that even TDC (They Don't Care) couldn't take seriously, it contained the following puny penalties:

This was, of course, a significant watering down of the penalties in the laughably inadequate S106 agreement, which doubled the fine for each repeat offence. And we know that only a tiny percentage of the flights that caused annoyance and distress to the (voting, Council Tax-paying) public ever attracted a fine.

However, in the glorious new future that Manston has planned for us, there will be no fines and no penalties. There will be no incentive for them to abide by any rules. There will be no point in TDC bothering to monitor them - not that they do much of that at the moment.

We will have to hope that the airport that is happy to stick two fingers up to the American government will be good and considerate neighbours.

We will have to trust them to regulate themselves responsibly.

Come to the public meeting on November 25th and tell us what you think.

Worst Thanet movie ever...

Well, as the caption says, thank God it's only a movie...

It is just a joke, right?

Paul Carter: Emperor of Kent

Katherine Kerswell "Group MD" of KCC has left her £197k post. [Oh, no she hasn't! Oh, yes she has! Oh, let's see what KCC's press release says. Oh, let's not bother.] Initial rumours had Paul Carter as Leader and MD - probably not legal, and certainly not advisable. Later rumours had it that the post may simply be left vacant, as a money saving option. Either way, Cllr Carter will be the biggest fish in the pond for a while yet.

It appears that Ms Kerswell was doomed as a result of ruffling too many feathers in her reorganisation of KCC, so the Tory back-benchers conspired to oust her. Her pay-off is too large for anyone to talk about.

Another interesting idea being put about is that the recent KCC Tory leadership contest was decided on the basis of which candidate looked most likely to return Ms Kerswell to the strawberry fields of Northamptonshire. Looks like that's one pledge Paul Carter has delivered on... [rolling updates on this story...]

Here's what they said when they were all friends:

Later...

The plot thickens:

and then...

A public statement put together too hastily to have time to think of a page title:

Hmmm... What do you think happened?

Sanctions busting at Manston

Many of you have been wondering why the state airline of a pariah nation regularly visits a failing airport in the corner of England.

A while ago, I was told that Iran Air come to Manston to refuel, which struck me as a "reasonable reason" but a woefully inadequate explanation. Things are now becoming clearer...

For a number of historical reasons, Iran and USA are not best mates. The USA are currently showing their dislike of Iran through sanctions - read about the sanctions here. American foreign policy is conducted in such a way as to try to compel the rest of the world to follow their lead. The Americans "forbid companies and governments with economic ties with the US to trade with Iran".

Depending on your viewpoint, this can be regarded as the effective use of economic leverage, or as blackmail. Either way, it seems to be working, in as much as Iran Air is desperately short of spare parts to maintain its fleet. The inevitable impact on airworthiness probably explains why most of Iran Air's aircraft are banned from European airspace - read about the ban here. This BBC video clip shows a passenger explaining how the Iran Air plane's tyres burst when it landed at Manston, stranding the hapless Iranians in Thanet for the night.

Although the small fraction of Iran Air's fleet that is regarded as airworthy is allowed to land in London (not sure what they do about landing fees) they have to refuel elsewhere. Manton is apparently "devoid of American trade connections" and is thus free to flaunt the American sanctions without fear of retribution. If Manston ever tries running flights to the States, I expect they will find that the US Government and the Federal Aviation Authority have long and unforgiving memories. (Incidentally, does anyone know if Infratil has any "economic ties with the US"?)

So there you have it - Manston can get away with selling jet fuel to the Iranians because they are insignificant enough to slip through the American's sanctions net. When viewed alongside the track records some of Manston's other customers - MK Airlines' stop-frame bankruptcy; Kam Air's DC-8 close brush with disaster; Cargolux's part in the international criminal price-fixing cartel - it doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Manston: judge them by the companies they keep.

Urgent need for environmental assessment

Dear Sir,

I subscribe to your Newsletter which I find very informative. I would like to raise some questions about what involvement the Environment Agency (EA) have in these developments.

In my view, based upon past experience with Industrial Planning issues, the EA should be involved. Indeed I think they should be involved as part of all the planning issues and meetings. There are far too many environmental issues at stake for them not to be actively involved, these issues to name but a few are :-

• Noise
• Air Quality, seriously affected by emissions from aircraft engines, dumping of fuel under emergency situations, cargo handling equipment, lorries etc collecting cargo from the airport, passenger cars and the list could go on.
• Pollution arising from such things as run off from the runways, maintenance and servicing of aircraft and other vehicles, any form of accident and God forbid an aircraft crashing.
• For the current activities at Manston has there been an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out?
• Is such an assessment planned for the proposed increase in activities?

In my experience there certainly should be such an assessment, otherwise there can be no record of what changes are occurring and what damage is being done to the environment.

When considering the environment it is not just the environment local to Manston for consideration the environment of a far wider area must be considered this could stretch from Whitstable all along the coast to Ramsgate and out into the sea, and down towards Maidstone, Ashford and Folkestone.

Continuing with the theme of assessments, again in my experience, Risk Assessments for all the activities at Manston should be carried out. These should take into account all the "What Ifs" such as:

• Serious accident ie, aircraft crashing
• Fire
• Are the Emergency Services currently sufficiently manned, trained and equipped to deal with such emergencies?
• Again the list could go on.

I will be very interested to hear your comments to my points.

Also, could you provide me with the contact addresses, emails etc of all our local councillors, MP and any other parties/persons to lobby. I firmly believe that as many of the public as possible should 'take up the cudgels' to curtail any further activities at Manston.

Yours Sincerely,

M.L. Herne Bay

---

ML - you have touched on a number of good points.

• There is no doubt that the EA should have been actively encouraged to be more closely involved, starting a long time ago.
• The only people who don't think an EIA is long overdue are the airport and the Council.
• The noise, air and water pollution are long-standing issues. On each count, both the airport and the Council have conspicuously failed to monitor the ongoing damage and the potential risks.
• No EIA has been carried out on Manston's activities. Whenever the prospect of an EIA is mentioned, both the airport and the Council go pale, and start wriggling.
• You are absolutely right to highlight the geographical scope of the airport's impact - the air and water pollution spread even further than the noise pollution.
• All emergency services live in dread of catastrophic major incidents. By definition, these are of such a scale that it is not economically feasible to be fully prepared for them. Put bluntly, the question becomes: by how much will the emergency services and medical services fail on the day?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if other readers have more comments of their own...

• You can contact all your elected representatives through www.WriteToThem.com
• You can find details of the Canterbury councillors here (Peter Vickery-Jones holds the Transport Portfolio and sits on KIACC)
• You can find details of the Thanet councillors here (Joanna Gideon chairs the Airport Working Party)
• You should consider supporting CPRE Protect Kent - they're supporting us.

Campaigners anger at bid to introduce night flights

Airport owners have been accused of trying to "pull a fast one" after revealing new plans for night flights over Herne Bay. Controversy has boiled for the past two years over the policy, with Manston Airport owners Infratil keen to boost the number of night flights at the Thanet airport.

Under the current agreement the airport is not allowed any scheduled flights between 11pm and 7am. But in a new revised proposal submitted on Friday, Infratil says it will limit any flights between 11.30pm and 6am to less than two a night and will comply with a strict noise quota.

But the policy leaves them free to fly as many planes as they want - unrestricted by noise limits - between 11pm and 11.30pm and 6am and 7am. Phil Rose, who runs the website HerneBayMatters and has fiercely campaigned against the night flights, said:

"The airport owners are trying to pull a fast one. They are proposing to place an upper limit on the total amount of noise nuisance from planes, but they'll only be measuring the noise between 11.30pm and 6am. Who are they trying to kid?"

Airport chiefs have forecast an average 6.4 flights between 11pm and 11.30pm and 6am and 7am, but just 1.8 between 11.30pm and 6am. Mr Rose said:

"They call this less than two flights a night, but it's actually more than one an hour throughout the night. You also have to bear in mind that these are average numbers - when there are no planes one night, there'll probably be 16 the next night. So an 'average' night could be a Boeing 747-400 cargo plane landing, or taking off, at 11.05pm, 11.15pm, 11.25pm, 1.55am, 3.40am, 6.05am, 6.25am and 6.55am - and they're presenting that as a couple of flights a night."

Planes landing at Manston fly straight over Herne Bay if there is an easterly wind and skim Reculver when they take off into a westerly wind. Mr Rose said:

"Sometimes, like last summer, we can have several weeks of non-stop easterly winds. So the people of Herne Bay can look forward to sleepless nights from noise pollution, ill health from the resulting stress, ill health from the air pollution from cargo planes and HGVs, and the rapid destruction of our tourist industry."

---

Rejection "could threaten airport"

Manston boss Charles Buchanan says allowing night flights would create 3,000 jobs by 2018 and is vital for the long-term future of the airport. He said:

"For the airport to be commercially viable in the longer term and deliver for Kent what other airports have done for their regions, it is vital that we are allowed to compete in terms of the operating hours."

The submission also includes a Night Noise Assessment Report after previous plans sparked fears about noise. Mr Buchanan said:

"Rejecting the submission by prohibiting all commercial traffic between 11pm and 7am would severely hinder the airport's ability to attract passenger and freight airlines. It would cost the local economy an estimated £30 million per year and some 1,450 jobs at a time when the area needs them more than ever. It could even threaten the continuation of the airport as a viable business."

The plans will go out to public consultation after Thanet council has had an independent assessment carried out.

HB Gazette 3rd Nov 2011 joewalker@thekmgroup.co.uk

Support from CPRE Protect Kent

Thanet District Committee

Matters have not been all quiet on the eastern front. A number of issues have surfaced — or re-surfaced — within the District. The most significant is the proposal for night-flights from Kent International Airport, Manston.

This is a subject which has featured for some time as a dark storm cloud over Thanet, ominous and threatening but never quite ready to release its anger. It now appears that the storm is about to break.

We have engaged with the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee (KIACC) to challenge Infratil, the airport's owners, and Thanet District Council (Thanet DC) on the need for night-flights, and more importantly how permission for such activities is being determined.

We consider that due process is being circumvented, including full and open consultation with the residents of Thanet. Together with KIACC and other active parties we will be examining the legality of present and past planning decisions relating to Manston, and encouraging frank and open discussion on the planned future of the airport.

We believe we can bring considerable expertise to the scene, based on our experience at the Lydd Inquiry.

Andrew Ogden
Campaigns Manager
CPRE Protect Kent
Newsletter Autumn 2011

---

These people care about the things that you care about, and they have the clout and expertise to make a difference. They have the clout and expertise because they have full-time staff who have built up years of experience successfully doing the things we're trying to do.

These nice people need to eat, and buy clothes, and pay their phone bills. They need money. Your money. My money. Any money will do. This is where membership of Protect Kent comes in. Click HERE, now, to pop over to their website, where you can get whatever kind of membership suits you best - joint, family, concessionary, under 25, whatever.

Take your pick, and then press the magic buttons to make it happen. You'll get automatic membership of the national CPRE, and you'll get half-price entry to lots of nice places, and you'll get occasional magazines and other good stuff, but most importantly you'll get that nice warm feeling that comes from knowing you've done the right thing for the right reason.

Flybe says UK's domestic air travel boom is over

Flybe has declared an end to the boom in domestic air travel as the regional airline reported a deepening drop in demand for British routes.

The Exeter-based carrier runs domestic services which include Manchester to Norwich and Aberdeen to Gatwick, but the fallibility of its business to UK demand has been underlined by two profit warnings this year.

Flybe avoided another surprise on earnings on Wednesday as it published first-half results, though an increase of pre-tax profits in the six months to 30 September of £8.2m to £14.3m had been forecast to be significantly higher at one point this year. Before the profit warnings, Flybe had been expecting to make £36m.

As well as the poor profits performance, the results contained a further admission of weakness in the UK market. Flybe said winter bookings were down 1% compared with last year, confirming a deterioration of sales on top of an already poor outlook. Only last month Flybe had forecast a 1% increase in winter bookings. It carries 7 million passengers a year.

At the time of its second profit warning Flybe said it was still gauging whether the decline in UK travel – which accounts for seven out of 10 Flybe passengers – was due to a faltering economy or a fundamental move away from domestic routes. Jim French, Flybe's long-standing chairman and chief executive, said the fall appeared to be deep-set. "This is a trend we have picked up across the industry You have got to look at the industry, not just Flybe. I think we are seeing a very, very flat situation."

French added that, according to the Civil Aviation Authority, domestic air travel had fallen 20% over the past four years, as an over-supplied market bottomed out. "It is a combination of the economic and business cutbacks over the period, but I truthfully think that the market was over-supplied five to 10 years ago," said French, pointing to a subsequent scaling down of domestic routes by Ryanair and easyJet, as well as the sale of British Airways' domestic operations to Flybe in 2006.

Flybe has emphasised plans to expand in Europe, including the acquisition of Finncomm Airlines in a joint venture with Finnish carrier Finnair.

According to the Civil Aviation Authority, UK airports handled 48.7 million passengers in 2007, but that number fell to 38 million last year – a fall of 22%. Rail appears to have been a major beneficiary and competitor. The Association of Train Operating Companies said intercity rail journeys had risen by 19% since 2007, while on the top 10 domestic air routes, including London to Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow, rail's market share versus airlines has risen from 32% to 44% since 2007. "In what is a highly competitive market, better services and more cheap tickets are encouraging more and more people to choose rail to travel between the UK's main cities," said ATOC.

Shares in Flybe rose 2p to 70p, despite the gloomier UK outlook. Analysts said the airline's tough action on costs – the cost of flying a single passenger rose slightly – had calmed investors.

"Demand looks as weak as it did last month, but the saving grace is a tight grip on costs, which are hardly growing at all," said Douglas McNeill, analyst at Charles Stanley Securities.

Guardian 9th Nov 2011

Labour denies night flight U-turn

For myself, I think the idea of a "whipped" vote (when members are formally ordered to toe the party line) is an affront to democracy. Each councillor's first duty is to the residents of their ward, and if that conflicts with party policy, then the residents' interests should win every time.

That said, there is no practical way of telling whether a vote has been informally whipped, with the usual mix of sticks and carrots. And there's always (thankfully) some bloody-minded/ruggedly independent individuals who simply won't do what they're told.

Finally, I do wish politicians wouldn't say things like "People will have to trust us" - it's guaranteed to raise both chuckles and hackles.

---

Thanet Labour leader Clive Hart has denied a U-turn on his party's pre-election anti night-flight pledge.

Manston airport's owner Infratil has revealed plans for up to eight movements a night, in an application submitted to Thanet council last week. That will kick-start 12 weeks of public consultation on the proposals, which if approved would overturn the current ban on scheduled aircraft landing or taking off after 11pm or before 7am.

In the run up to May's local elections the district's Labour party said that it would unanimously oppose night flights from Manston. After the election, which left Thanet council hung, Labour claimed that its no to night flights policy had helped swing the vote in the Nethercourt area of Ramsgate, which lies under one of the airport's flight paths.

This week, in a statement responding to Infratil's submission, Mr Hart said his members will be giving their own views during the consultation. He said:

"Over the coming weeks and months members of the Labour group will scrutinise the proposed night-flying document carefully and thoroughly. Our district councillors will then make their individual views known at the appropriate points in the process, having taken account of all the information available."

The Conservatives already guaranteed an "unwhipped" free vote for their group members.

The latest night flight policy proposal was submitted to Thanet council by Infratil last Thursday. The proposal's include an aircraft noise assessment report and an economic assessment explaining the implications of the proposal. This application follows on from previous proposals for night-time flying which were submitted to the council by the airport in September 2010. Mr Hart has denied that the party's most recent statement is at odds with their original campaign pledge. He said:

"It would be foolish to say anything about it when we could be barred from speaking on any possible future planing [sic] application, and that is the situation we are in. We haven't gone back on any of our pledges. People can think what they like, for me to say anything else won't do anybody any favours. I would bar myself from taking part in the debate. People will have to trust us."

Council leader Bob Bayford said:

"I definitely think that a free vote is the right way to go, which is what our policy has always been. I am not sure how people, who voted Labour on the pledge that they will be against night flights, will feel about Labour's recent statement."

The council will now seek an independent assessment of the proposals and technical reports by an external company before public consultation on the proposal can begin. Mr Bayford said:

"We know this is a hugely important issue, especially for those living under the flight path, so will be providing a minimum consultation period of 12 weeks for people to have their say. I'd like to encourage everyone with a view to ensure they take the time to participate."

The latest proposal details plans for an average of eight scheduled flights a night. Scheduled night flight are currently prohibited under the airport's agreement with the council. A start date for a full consultation will be announced when an independent report is completed.

Paul Twyman, the independent chairman of the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee, said the committee was in favour of the development of the airport, subject to satisfactory environmental controls. He added:

"The key issue is whether the proposals put to the council take proper account of the effect on the environment, and how that balances with the employment and other economic benefits. It is important that the public consultation takes place with plenty of information in the public domain, and that we all have ample time to consider what is proposed. I am in the hands of the committee, but I am pretty sure that they will want to have a special meeting to discuss the application, and there will be pressure for this to be in public."

The new night flight submission can be viewed here.

IoT Gazette 4th Nov 2011