Response

Application No:13/01228/FUL& 13/01373/OUT London City Airport

Please find below my submission to: Revisions to the planning applications including Environmental Statement Addendum received.

Please note this is in addition to my previous submission and should be considered together.

Pending the Pre- action notification issued today.

Reserve comments may be further submitted pending clarification on issues raised or information pending from Freedom of information requests which could not be completed within the 21 day limit.

With Thanks

Alan Haughton

LCA could implement the current increase in flights without doing the further works that they are now seeking planning permission for. However, their master plan clearly envisages a further increase. The master plan is an important material consideration for Newham, when considering the application they need to be alive to the fact that these works could be a way of paving the way for the further increase that LCA envisage in their Master Plan, enabling them to argue in future that the infrastructure is already in place, overcoming one of the hurdles to permission for such an increase.

Current load factors at the airport are abysmal and have not been properly considered and even with development do not increase meaning that planes are over one third empty. Load factors have not been properly considered in Green House Gas emissions.

Low load factors mean we suffer a disproportionately high increase in pollution and GHG per passenger.

Gatwick has a load factor of 83%, Heathrow 85%. By increasing their load factor they could easily meet projected passenger number without the need for further development, as they claimed in 2009.

They argued in 2007/09 that no infrastructure changes would be needed (as noted by Newham Council) to increase to the maximum 120,000 flights. Now that they are arguing it is needed it can be logically assumed it is for the next phase of the master plan to increase to 173,000 flights.

Many aspects of the Section 106 agreement, are not agreed, like the PSZ Value Compensation Scheme S106 2009. VCS is to compensate for value lost in sites yet to be developed covered by the extension of the Public Safety Zone. While the airport says negotiations are ongoing this is not acceptable as other interested parties not affected by the 2009 application could be with this.

London City Airport have conducted a feasibility study into opening a Crossrail Station at the airport location and are in talks with TfL at a senior level. this must be included in any analysis of the application as it would have very real impacts to the area.

New PSZ changes to the 2009 planning agreement bring both bridges Sir Steve Redgrave and Connaught Bridge into the airports inner 1/10,000 crash zone. These are the two main bridges/walkways bridging the docks and Silvertown. No risk analysis or impact studies have been carried out on the risks vs future traffic modeling, especially as the airport will massively increase traffic across SR Bridge. Fire Brigade needs to be consulted on these risks also as in the event of an accident they may not be able to access parts of the docks if a bridge is taken out.

The 2010 PSZ forms the baseline for the Environmental Statement. The number of flights and mix need to be compared to the 2012 baseline. Is there any change from the 2010 PSZ in comparison to the what would be the 2012 PSZ. The flight mix changed over time.

The CADP is based entirely on 2012 figures using a 2010 PSZ. The figures used in the Without Development are based on what PSZ? Do the flight numbers and mix used in the 2012 baseline for Without Development correspond with the 2012 PSZ?

The vast majority of aircraft are significantly altering/diverting from the CAA designed flight path to the east centre line yet the airport considers that does not effect noise levels. we need proper noise modeling and investigation to see if they do, and what the impacts are of this significant altering as they admit in LBN Reg Request 7.

1. For departures from Runway 27, the situation is different. The actual turn to the north occurs earlier than assumed in the contouring work. The figures show a general dispersion pattern that sits significantly to the east of the defined standard instrument departure route and that used in the noise contouring work. In practice the effect is small as the difference between the modelled and actual departure tracks occurs outside the 57 dB contour. The 54 dB sensitivity contour however would extend slightly further to the north, at its western end, if adjusted to account for the actual departures observed in Figures 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 in Appendix 4.2 of this ES Addendum.

Comparisons of old and new generation aircrafts mislead. There have been over 60,000 average totaled aircraft movements breaching the strict noise levels yet no action has been taken by Newham. tHe predicted number of new quieter aircraft cannot offset the increase in noise.

As indicated above the implementation of the Airports 2009 Planning Permission, which permits a total of 120,000 aircraft movements per annum, is subject to a series of planning conditions and legal obligations.

In relation to noise, Condition 7 of the 2009 Permission requires all aircraft operating at LCY to demonstrate their ability to operate within five departure Noise Categories, ranging from Category E (Noise reference level 82.6PNdB) to Category A (Noise reference level 91.6 to 94.5PNdB)

In previous years, (2009-2012) a number of aircraft have operated slightly above their applicable Noise Reference Level; such aircraft include the E190, E170 and RJ100.

Slightly above is an admission that aircraft are operating that break planning conditions and legal obligations. These breached noise levels hand NOT been used rather they have used what they should have been rather than what they were.

The E190 aircraft exceeded NoiseCategory A in 2010 by 0.4dB and in 2011 by 0.1dB. Acknowledging the reduction in noise levels across this period, LBN allowed the airport to continue to work with airlines and aircraft manufacturers to successfully reduce the noise from its departures.

An admission that Newham Council were fully aware that aircraft were operating outside planning conditions and legal obligations. They acknowledged that the aircraft was already breaching the obligations, yet allowed it to continue for another year.

In 2013 the RJ100 has exceeded Noise Category A by 0.6dB and up to 0.7dB in the preceding years.

Yet another admission that this aircraft has breached, and has been allowed to breach the agreement in 2013.

The RJ 100 has exceeded the noise planning conditions and legal obligations every year since the 2009 agreement.

2009 - 19,803 flights

2010 - 8,696

2011 - 7,187

2012 - 7,578

2013 - 7,500 approx

This is over 50,000 flights, over every year for 5 years. We can safely and legitimately say that this aircraft should not be operating at London City Airport. No action has been taken.

Saying that it has operated slightly above their applicable Noise Reference Level is unacceptable. Please clarify the legal definition in relation to the S106 for operation slightly above applicable Noise Reference

London Airspace consultation is under way. London City Airport have stated at LCACC they will sponsor a consultation on changes to their flight path. No consideration to this application should be given until that is completed.

Wake Turbulence while considered for current aircraft in a previous submission, has not properly considered all the impacts on developments in the area like Millennium Mills, which has asbestos , and turbulence may disturb and cover nearby areas and homes especially in the future development of Silvertown Quays, and the impact on cranes along the Dock which are listed buildings.

Answers requested on the Dock Walls and the Blue Ribbon Network are not answered and the impact of biodiversity on the walls and on the GLA Dock floor have not been properly considered.

We need to understand the full impacts on biodiversity and ecology across the dock cumulatively. Restrictions on growing certain plants and trees, the need to kill certain birds because of bird strike, have not been considered.

Traffic modeling has not considered the cumulative impact of developments by the airport and around the airport. It has strictly modeled projected airport traffic yet, the Silvertown Tunnel , the closure of the Woolwich Ferry, Asian Business Port and a future ferry / Thames Gateway Bridge have not been modeled in. The airport is actually campaigning for the bridge so is well aware that traffic model and air pollution for the area could drastically alter.

A number of housing developments and future developments have not been considered and left out of the CADP regarding the impacts of noise.Asian Business park plans 1000 homes opposite the Airport.10,000 homes agreed for the Greenwich Peninsula have gone ignored.There are increases in the number of homes at Silvertown Quays

Tidal Basin 700+ homes have been approved.Barking Riverside has been designated a garden city with 11,000 homes by George Osbourne.Tens of 1000s of homes have been left out of the calculations.

These must all be considered and included with special attention on Greenwich Peninsula and Barking Riverside.

The impact on the Silvertown Crossing must also be considered with a full modeling and safety report carried out and consulted on. The Public Safety Zone has never actually been the size that the airport predicted at the planning stage and has always been larger.

A proper net loss of jobs study and loss of value due to the PSZ has not been carried out correctly, nor has it been defined. the airport talks of creating jobs but never mention the net losses due to safeguarding and the PSZ. As most of the land surrounding the airport is owned by a a public body, best practice and best value for money most be imperative. The taxpayers asset must not but damaged or devalued by a private asset sweating their asset for shareholders.

PSZ will also restrict desperately needed homes, the number one concern for London and Londoners. The Airport admit this in their Masterplan, which is why it is also a material consideration.

The PSZ impacts homes already established in Thamesmead. There urgently need to be a review of these homes and also those being offered mechanical ventilation especially around health, wellbeing and mental health. The planning authority in Thamesmead, Greenwich refused accommodation near the Blackwall Tunnel where mechanical ventilation was the option due to the serious impact it could have on a persons mental health This needs to be investigated and has not been done in the Health Assessment.

Quieter new generation aircraft will not offset noise from the overall increase in aircraft movements, so noise will continue to increase over time, hence the feed for further off ground noise modeling scenarios. What is the overall increase in noise and how much would be offset by so called quieter aircraft?

Royal Docks Management Authority Limited (RoDMA)The Royal Docks Management Authority Limited (RoDMA), established in 1990, holds a 225 yearlease of the water areas and associated marine infrastructure of the Royal Docks and is responsible fortheir control and management. Following the abolition of the London Development Agency (LDA) theGLA acquired LDA's shareholding.

The GLA hold 96.7% of the RoDMA shares and 41.6% of the votingrights. The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs holds a special share which gives it controlover key decisions. The Authority has significant influence but does not control RoDMA. RoDMA hasbeen treated as an associate in the Authority's group accounts.

RoDMA have not confirmed that their support includes that of DeFRA. Defra NOT RoDMA have to be consulted regarding the dock especially in the light of the London City Airport directors conflict of interest on the board of RoDMA as previously noted.

I am also concerned that the Managing Director of RoDMA was intimately involved with London City Airports owners GIP and the sale of Gatwick.

Clarification and further research need to satisfy application

RoDMA does not lease or own the Dock Basin and cannot authorise any work on it and work that will impact it. Rodma lease the water on the dock.London City Airport will need consent from the GLA to drive piles into the bed of King George V Dock in order to support the concrete platform if they wish to build over the dock.The GLA need to be assured that this will not impact the London Taxpayer owned land.We need to see full GLA analysis of impact of the any construction work, impact on biodiversity , value land compensation scheme agreement, sale or lease must be tendered. Full legal GLA analysis should be carried out on land leased by London City Airport from the GLA that expires 2110 Asset reference 08/015 to see if the plans breach the leasehold.

I do not believe RoDMA have been, or can be objective in this matter.

Newham has to assure itself that aviation fuel burn (also called odours) has been properly considered in relation to health impacts and costs and that if aircraft use lead based fuels what the impacts on the surrounding areas are.

Aircraft using leaded aviation gasoline may endanger public health.Avgas (aviation gasoline, also known as aviation spirit in the UK) is an aviation fuel used to power piston-engine aircraft. Avgas is distinguished from mogas (motor gasoline), which is the everyday gasoline used in cars and some non-commercial light aircraft. Unlike mogas, avgas contains tetraethyl lead (TEL), a toxic substance used to enhance combustion stability.

The most commonly used aviation fuel is 100LL, i.e., "low lead". It is dyed blue and contains a relatively small amount of tetraethyl lead - though the amount is greater than what was contained in many automotive grades of leaded fuel before such fuel was phased out. As of Jan 2010, 100LL has a TEL content of 1.2 to 2 grams TEL per US gallon (0.30.5 g/l) and is the most commonly available and used aviation gasoline. One gram of TEL contains 600 milligrams of lead.

A number of properties in close proximity to the airport will be at increased risk of being affected by odour / fuel burn due to the increased numbers of aircraft operations associated with the proposed CADP.

Impacts on proposed 1000 homes at ABP have not been considered. (information below)

LBN Reg 22 Request

Load factor has not been taken into account in response as requested.

There need to be further understanding on the impact of the insulation scheme on properties. Does it affect the value of a home, what are the costs and CO2 impact of running these machines, do home owners have to declare when selling their property that it has been offered. What is the legal impact of refusing, then trying to sell your property. How soon after a property is build do these get offered.

We need proper air quality readings, projections and health impacts for residents at this location. 366 cars an hour from 5am makes it a major road.

1. The Airport runs an Air Quality Measurement Programme (AQMP) that includes the continued operation of monitoring equipment on the roof of the airports administration building, City Aviation House

Air quality readings for the roof of a building are not acceptable( LCA-CAH) What height is the building must be investigated and inputed into the modeling. You cannot dismiss emissions released at height saying they have no impact on ground levels, while monitoring those ground levels at the top of a 4 storey building.

Air Pollution limit values are 'absolute' to protect health and cannot be 'traded' vs growth

Clarification on certain provisions of Directive 2008/50/EC The authoritative interpretation of EU law is the prerogative of the EU Court of Justice; subject to that caveat, your understanding of the Directive largely coincides with the way we would interpret the relevant provisions, if requested by the Court. In particular: The obligation to achieve compliance with the limit values includes the obligation to maintain such air quality status once compliance is achieved (Article 13, first paragraph). With the only three exceptions listed in Annex III (Section A, paragraph 2), limit values must indeed be complied with throughout the territory of any given air quality zone, and compliance should be not be determined nor assessed as an average of concentrations measured in different locations within the same zone. Unlike target values, which create an objective to be achieved where possible or where not entailing disproportionate costs, limit values create an obligation of result which is unconditional and absolute, irrespective of costs (Article 2, paragraphs 5 and 9). 5. Where air quality is already good, Article 12 of the Directive applies. This provision spells out in legal terms the non-deterioration principle, according to which Member States shall not only maintain the levels below the limit values, but also endeavour to preserve the best ambient air quality compatible with sustainable development.

All concentrations must be considered and wind direction taken into account. 1000 homes at the ABP will all be above ground level and could be up to up to 915 metres high.

2. Guidance issued by EPUK8 suggests that an air quality assessment is only necessary where the 24-hr AADT flow changes by more 5% (within an AQMA). Incremental changes of 5.6% and 8.2% change are predicted to occur in 2023 on Royal Docks Road and North Woolwich Road (West) respectively, but traffic beyond these links will become increasingly diluted

with greater distance from the Airport. Vectos (the transport consultants for CADP) have advised that it is extremely unlikely that incremental changes above 5% would occur on any other road links.

Silvertown Tunnel, the new ferry / Thames Gateway Bridge or the traffic from ABP have not been included in the modeling.

LCA04 and LCA16 have breached and removed from scope using Olympic Parking as justification but had previously breached pre 2012. THese are key receptors at key locations for the Asian Business Park and will affect workers and the 1000 homes planned for that location.

It is beyond belief that aircraft are not being included - a baseline could easily be considered and reached as has been done in every other aspect of the submission. This is nonsense. Air quality pollution at a location/site must be included no matter what the source. A list of all UK airports must be compared to see what other airports do and do not take these readings for comparison.

LCA04 and LCA16 are missing.

Crossrail Impact has not been considered properly especially as the Airport have admitted to the London City Airport Consultative Committee that they have carried out a feasibility study about opening a station by the airport and are in talks with TfL at a senior level. This would change the impacts in a majority of different areas.

The feasibility study should be included with the application.

Impacts from London City Airport to Woolwich and the growth of Woolwich have not been considered. DLR does not start and end at the Airport. Tens of thousand of people from Woolwich use it and huge future population growth in woolwich is predicted. These people will be using the

DLR not to get to the airport but to wider London.

Changes in DLR routing have not being considered. Crossrail ending / starting at Woolwich where people would then use the DLR has also been ignored.There can be no justification as to increase Green House Gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming and further investigation need to be carried out as to whether this contravenes CCA.The 2008 Climate Change Act introduced an ambitious legally binding commitment to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, relative to 1990. To put the country on the path to this long-term goal, a system of carbon budgets' was introduced to limit emissions in successive five-year periods. Budgets have been fixed up until the fourth, which requires a cut of 50% relative to 1990 levels in the period 202327.

Baseline emissions double with this proposed CADP.

Baseline emissions do not include do not take into account the building works,materials, construction or development. This will also increase emissions and must be included in like for like baseline figures.

The 2009 permission was given using a baseline of 95,000 flights which the airport have already changed. The Airport has since changed the mix of aircrafts using Air Transport Movements. Smaller, quieter aircraft have been removed and replaced with larger noisier jets, some operating above allowed noise levels. You cannot replace a small aircraft with a large jet, then claim a new jet will be quieter than that. The Airport admits it does not need to carry out a single piece of infrastructure to allow the CS100 to operate.

The primary purpose is *not* to house new generation but to fulfill the Masterplan objective which is a material consideration and must be taken into account.

Air Noise 7.3 Planning Statement.

3. In 2023, the assessment year adopted for the CADP, the forecast is that around 13% of these more modern aircraft (e.g. the Bombardier CS100) will be operating with the CADP in place. Without the CADP, only around 9% will be accommodated at this time.

13% of 111,00 With Development Forecast - Total 12,210

9% of 96,700 Without Development - Total 8,703

Difference - 3,507

Airports own figures show this massive redevelopment will only allow the introduction of an 3,507 of these modern aircraft. The increase in emissions, noise, pollution for a mere 3% of new generation aircraft has not been considered and must be.

Even using the Airports 2012 flight numbers baseline 70,502 it is a mere 5%

In the Bombardier CS100 test flight, three points to remember, that differentiate this flight from any that would happen at CCY are

1) The aircraft was totally empty. No passengers, luggage, freight.

2) it took off and landed at Mirabel Airport, with a runway of 3,658 m. LCY has 1319 m nearly a third less.The CS100 needed much less thrust to take off, and much less reverse thrust to stop on landing. Good for quiet.

3) the terrain surrounding Mirabel is flat farmland, not the reflective surfaces of water and highrise buildings. Again, good for quiet.

Tower Hamlets planning requirements are legally binding. The non- binding sound insulation scheme must be adapted to work with within these guidelines.

Clarification must also be clear on the impact of ventilation on the value of properties, impact on sales, legal declarations and surveys.

Impact on outdoor space within these building are not properly taken into account.

3 - There are many low, medium and high rise flats to the south of the Airport. To provide a representative assessment of ground noise levels in the local communities, a substantial number of assessment locations have been used (around 2,400). These include receptors at all floor heights.

APPENDIX 4.4 CadnaA Aircraft Ground Noise Contours- Figures 4.4.1- 4.4.6

APPENDIX 4.5 CadnaA Aircraft Ground Noise Contours- Figures 4.5.1- 4.5.7

Appendix 4.4 clearly show that levels of noise increase above ground level the higher you go. THis has not been modeled or considered in Tower Hamlets where ground noise levels have been extrapolated.

On Air Pollution - Benzene pollutants have not been considered in this application when it should be under EU law.

Benzene is a known human carcinogen (cancer causing substance), and also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone (summer smog). Under the planning agreement with Newham Council London City Airport (LCA) is obliged to carry out a study of the impact of the airport upon air quality.

Newham Council is required by law to assess the quality of air and VOCs to determine if it is likely to meet the standards set out in the Governments Air Quality Objectives. These objectives relate to seven pollutants:

carbon monoxide benzene 1,3 - butadiene lead nitrogen dioxide sulphur dioxide particulate matter

The application must include and consult on all pollutants. Heathrow does not have public access areas in the way that London City Airport has with schools and homes meters away from the runway.

Benzene 5 g/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force 1.1.2010 and was not included in the previous 2009 expansion submission.

Benzene is a hydrocarbon compound that is present in petroleum products. The primary source of benzene is the evaporation and combustion of petroleum fuels, the road transport sector is the single largest source. Benzene is present in aviation fuels and the operation of aircraft (and vehicles) at the airport all contribute to the ambient concentration of benzene. The Governments Air Quality Strategy establishes a very stringent target to safeguard health.

Newham Council is responsible for promoting and protecting the health and wellbeing of people in the borough since April 2013.They have a range of public health functions, but there are five specific responsibilities described by law. They are:Helping protect people from the dangers of communicable diseases and environmental threats.Organising and paying for sexual health services.Providing specialist public health advice to primary care services: for example GPs and community health professionals. Organising and paying for height and weight checks for primary school children.Organising and paying for regular health checks for Newham people.

The impact of the CADP has not been considered or costed on some of these requirements and could impact Newhams health budget and bench marks.

A recently published UK/US study in the British Medical Journal3 showed that researchers found increased risks of stroke, coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease from aircraft noise. This was valid for both hospital admissions and mortality, particularly among the 2% of the study population exposed to the highest levels of aircraft noise. This is also a consideration.

http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5432

Schools have been taken into account. Places with vulnerable people have not. Richard House Hospice will enter the 57db contour and while not a hospital offers respite care.

New build schools will be expected to keep windows closed to meet noise targets though Addendum says noise in schools ok is windows kept shut. What are the health implications of this?

Newham has to assure itself that aviation fuel burn (also called odours) has been properly considered in relation to health impacts and costs and that if aircraft use lead based fuels what the impacts on the surrounding areas are.

Aircraft using leaded aviation gasoline may endanger public health.Avgas (aviation gasoline, also known as aviation spirit in the UK) is an aviation fuel used to power piston-engine aircraft. Avgas is distinguished from mogas (motor gasoline), which is the everyday gasoline used in cars and some non-commercial light aircraft. Unlike mogas, avgas contains tetraethyl lead (TEL), a toxic substance used to enhance combustion stability.

The most commonly used aviation fuel is 100LL, i.e., "low lead". It is dyed blue and contains a relatively small amount of tetraethyl lead - though the amount is greater than what was contained in many automotive grades of leaded fuel before such fuel was phased out. As of Jan 2010, 100LL has a TEL content of 1.2 to 2 grams TEL per US gallon (0.30.5 g/l) and is the most commonly available and used aviation gasoline. One gram of TEL contains 600 milligrams of lead.

A number of properties in close proximity to the airport will be at increased risk of being affected by odour / fuel burn due to the increased numbers of aircraft operations associated with the proposed CADP.

Impacts on proposed 1000 homes at ABP have not been considered. (information below)

ABP at Royal Albert Dock London have submitted a planning application and their environmental statement findings must be considered in this application which seem to suggest their finding are vastly different from the airports.

Alan Haughton 14 Kintyre House Coldharbour LondonE14 9NL

07909 907 395

May 2nd 2014

Letter of Pre- Action in reference to 13/01228/FUL & 13/01373/OUT London City Airport.

Dear Sirs,

There are grave concerns in the community on how this consultation (13/01228/FUL & 13/01373/OUT London City Airport) has been carried out and the information given to members of the public.

You are no doubt aware, that it is a well established legal principle, that if a public authority has committed to consult, it must do so properly (see R v North East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan (1999) (citing R v Brent LBC ex parte Gunning (1986)).

Confidential documentation.

We note the Public Consultation by Newham Council and London City Airport base key arguments on information that interested parties and the public have not been allowed to see. The Airport openly admits the information is confidential and it alone has access to it.Interested parties should not be in a position where they cannot assess the accuracy of this information. It impacts and removes their capacity to respond effectively to the consultation.

As has been previously acknowledged by Newham Council, the airport has operated aircraft outside of strictly agreed noise limits, hence, interested parties in a public consultation cannot be expected to accept information blindly.

I believe that the omission of a key document is reason why the extension to the consultation period must be granted.

Please could you clarify under which regulations you have allowed the submission of confidential information into a public consultation.

Please could you clarify under which regulations confidential information can be part of a public consultation.

Terminology

We note key terminology Sideline, Flyover and Approach are all used but not explained and not included in the Glossary and Abbreviations and hence impacts interested parties capacity to respond effectively to the consultation.

I believe that the omission of key concise information, and unreasonable to expect it to be understood as is and is reason why the extension to the consultation period must be granted.

I have attached the terms and diagram as given by the airport, who acknowledge their use, in response to a query.

Please could you clarify under which regulations you have allowed use of unexplained terminology.

Please could you clarify under which regulations interested parties must be expected to understand international noise standard measurement positions without reference.

I believe that while Newham Council has committed to consult, it has not done so properly as required in the cases cited above.

Yours faithfully

Alan Haughton

The terms 'sideline' 'flyover' and 'approach' are taken from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) document Annex 16 Environmental Protection. The ES addendum (4.33-4.34) uses the term sideline - this is also known as lateral.Sideline/lateral for jet-powered aeroplanes: the point on a line parallel to, and 450m from, the runway centre line, where the noise level is a maximum during take-off;Flyover the point on the extended centre line of the runway and at a distance of 6.5km from the start of roll;Approach the point on the ground, on the extended centre line of the runway 2,000m from the threshold. On level ground this corresponds to a position 120 m (394ft) vertically below the 3 degree descent path originating from a point 300m beyond the threshold.These measurement positions are used when a new aircraft type is tested in accordance with International noise standards. The aircraft follows a standard procedure. This allows a like for like comparison for various aircraft types.

Threshold is defined as The beginning of that portion of the runway usable for landing (ICAO definition)