where now after public inquiry decision?
21/08/24
by John Stewart
The Government’s decision on London City Airport’s application to expand garnered a lot of publicity. Almost certainly this was because it was the first big infrastructure decision a new Labour Government committed to growth had to take.
It endorsed the Public Inquiry Inspector’s recommendations:
REFUSED permission for planes to operate on Saturday afternoons
GRANTED permission to operate 3 more planes during the first half hour of operation from 6.30am till 7am
GRANTED permission to increase annual passenger numbers from 6.5 million to 9 million a year
Full judgment: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals#recovered-planning-appeals
The preservation of the weekend break was a big win for communities, Newham Council, the planning authority and the many MPs, GLA members and councils who fought to preserve the break from the noise between 12.30pm on Saturday and 12.30 on Sunday.
At the Inquiry City Airport argued that Saturday afternoon flying was central to its strategy to attract 'high value' leisure passengers to replace the diminishing business market. That argument was not accepted by the Inspector.
The weekend break was introduced in the late 1990s as a condition for allowing an earlier expansion of the airport. In effect, though, aircraft had not flown at these times since the airport opened a decade earlier. The break was much-valued by local communities and defended fiercely by them over the years. The fact the Inspector sided with them was a major victory for them.
I suspect the new Government must have been delighted when they saw the Inspector’s recommendations. They allowed it to give the green light to new infrastructure (and so pass the first big growth test) while giving way on the issue that was most strongly opposed by community groups, local Labour councils and Labour MPs in the region.
The decision has been criticized by many climate groups. The Inspector had said the impact on of the proposal on climate would be ‘neutral’. I’m not sure it will be neutral but in the wide scheme of things it will be small. Remember, City was not applying for permission to operate more planes. There is a cap of 111,000 per year. If the market is there, the airport may, with this permission to increase passenger numbers, reach its annual ceiling of 111,000 within about 6 or 7 years. But there is considerable doubt whether the market will be there. In 2019, the last full year of operation, there were 83,000 flights. Last year it was just over 50,000. Without the permission to increase passenger numbers, it would take even longer to reach its cap.
New planes will be gradually phased in. They will be larger (though, because of where the airport is sited, there is a limit to the size of plane that can be accommodated - Ryanair and Easyjet planes, for example, are too big for it). The will be marginally quieter, though the difference in most places will be so small that it will be imperceptible to the human ear; only on departure close to the airport will there be a noticeable difference. They are likely to be more fuel-efficient than the current planes and so emit less CO2 emissions.
Whilst residents are delighted to have successfully defended their week-end break, they still live with a lot of noise (which is likely to increase early mornings). And a lot of people are impacted by noise from London City – almost certainly in excess of 100,000 people.
It has been made much worse for these communities since 2016 when all the airport’s flight paths were tightly concentrated. The airport now knows that was a mistake. It has a chance to rectify this when there is consultation on changes to the flight paths to and from all London’s airports, probably next year. Then weekends won’t be the only time there is an official break from the noise.
As for the Government, is will face decisions over expansion at Luton and Gatwick. There may also be pressure to look again at the last Government’s decision to give Manston the go-ahead in face of a clear recommdation from the Inspectors to refuse it. A third runway at Heathrow might also come back on the agenda. Will the City decision form a blueprint for future decisions? Only time will tell.
—————————————————————
The history of the current expansion proposals:
Key Milestones
26th December 2023
The proposals currently being considered by the Public Inquiry are different to those originally put forward by the airport.
The Inquiry is considering proposals to:
Permit aircraft to operate until 7.30pm on Saturdays (6.30pm during some of the winter months). At present no planes are allowed from 12.30pm on Saturdays until 12.30pm on Sundays.
Permit more planes in the first half hour of the day (6.30 – 7.00am)
Increase annual passenger numbers from 6.5 to 9 million
The story started in 2019
It started with the publication of London City’s draft Master Plan.
The airport wanted to:
Almost double the number of flights from their 2019 level (around 80,000 flights a year). There is an annual cap of 111,000. London City wanted that lifted to 151,000
Get rid of the 24 hour weekend break. Currently no flights are permitted between 12.30pm on Saturday and 12.30pm on Sunday
Bring in more early morning and late night flights. But the night flight ban would remain.
Summary in HACAN East Newsletter: https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HACAN-East-newsletter-July-2019.pdf
The proposals brought widespread opposition not just from communities but also from a record number of local authorities. Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Redbridge, Havering, Southwark, Greenwich and Lewisham objected. Never before had London City faced this level of opposition. The London Assembly’s Environment Committee and London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan have also objected. Bexley and the City of London only gave qualified support.
Here is a the full objection letter from Sadiq Khan - it is devastating in its criticism: https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Robert-Sinclair.pdf
Equally devastating one from Newham Council: https://hacan.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/LCY-Draft-Master-Plan-Consultation-Response-Letter_19.0226.PPPA_18.10.20....pdf
Then came Covid and things got scaled back
In December 2020 London City today published its final Master Plan. It had no status in law but set out City’s aspirations for the airport. It confirmed that key proposals contained in the draft Master Plan had been dropped. It dropped its controversial proposal to end the weekend break. It also said there were no immediate plans to introduce more early morning and late evening flights. The Master Plan retained the aim to raise the current annual flight cap of 111,000 to 151,000. But the airport has stressed that was aspirational.
To read the Master Plan: https://media.londoncityairport.com/london-city-airport-publishes-master-plan/
Then in 2022…
A new proposal came forward
The airport announced it would be seeking permission to:
Increase passenger numbers from 6.5 million to 9 million a year
Get rid of the ban on flights on Saturday afternoon and evening
Operate more flights during the first hour of operation after 6.30am and in the late evening
The annual cap on the number of flights permitted would remain at 111,000. Earlier proposals to raise it to 151,000 were dropped. The 8 hour night ban would also remain in place.
The airport consulted on these plans. As a result of the consultation the airport dropped plans to operate beyond 7.30pm on Saturdays and dropped its plans for late evening. It settled for the plans in front of the Public Inquiry.
Those plans were sent to Newham, the Planning Authority, which was obliged to consult on them. It did so. As a result of the consultation, it refused permission for the plan. The airport appealed. Thus the current Public Inquiry.
The History of the Flight Paths:
The Despair of Concentration but Hope for the Future
26th December 2023
It has turned out to be the most seismic event since the opening of London City Airport in 1987. In 2016 the airport concentrated all its flight paths. This meant that the same communities got all the planes. Of course communities under the final approach paths always had concentrated flight paths as aircraft needed to line up with the runway. Equally, those close to the airport will get a concentrated series of departing aircraft before they are able to fan out. But, until 2016, everybody else got dispersal which meant that the aircraft were often not much of a problem.
All that changed in 2016. Of course fewer people overall were impacted but those that were got a constant stream of planes. Complaints increased five-fold. City Airport aircraft became a problem for many people – some living many miles from the airport – for the first time. The airport appears to have been genuinely taken aback. It had thought it was making a minimal change and so had done minimal consultation. The situation is well-described in this report by consultants Taylor Airey. The section on London City is pages 46-51. It includes maps of the concentrated flight paths.
https://www.uecna.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/D-020-016-015_PBN-benchmarking_Final-Report-v4.pdf
Despite public protests, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approved City’s concentrated flight paths in 2018. But the CAA also commissioned consultants to recommend a new consultation process for the introduction of new flight paths following the debacle of the London City (and Gatwick) consultations. Airports must now take a series of steps prescribed by the CAA if they want to introduce new flight paths.
A reprieve for residents?
Shortly before COVID the Government announced that all UK airports would be required to introduce concentrated flight paths. This is because across the world air traffic controllers are moving from using a ground-based system to a satellite system to guide aircraft. It will mean narrow, concentrated flight paths known as Performance-Based Navigation (PBN).
These more direct routes will enable aircraft to be flown more efficiently and thus save fuel and reduce climate emissions. If they simply replicate what has happened at London City, it will be horrendous for people under the flight paths. But these precise routes also open up the possibility of respite as, except for those closest to the airport, the flight paths can be alternated.
This is what London City intends to do. Despite already having PBN routes it is being asked to look at them again as all the flights paths to and from all the airports in London and the South East need to be coordinated. The Government has set up a special body to oversee this coordination.
In 2022 London City consulted key stakeholder groups on some creative concepts to replace the currently unpopular routes. These included the provision of respite so that most communities could get a break from the noise. An outline of stakeholder’s views was given to the airport’s Consultative Committee. People wanted:
The sharing of routes to provide respite
Planes to be kept higher for longer
A reduction in fuel and climate emissions
A separation of routes so that, wherever possible, the same area was not overflown by planes from different airports
Collaboration with other airports.
The next stage will be a more detailed and public consultation, probably late 2025/early 2026. New flights are unlikely before 2027. London City is keen to progress as quickly as possible as it has realized that the concentrated flight paths, without respite, have soured relations with both the local communities and many local authorities. How it must now regret that 2016 decision.
RESIST EXPANSION ON EQUITY GROUNDS
12th March 2020
by John Stewart
The sheer scale of the proposed expansion of the Royal Docks area of East London is breathtaking. £8 billion pounds is being sunk into it. More than 30,000 new homes will be delivered.
The Evening Standard (11/03/20) put it like this:
“The multi-scheme regeneration district is the size of central London, from Hyde Park to Tower Bridge. It will bring a new business district to rival the City, a cutting-edge shipyard, new high streets, watersports facilities, at least seven new residential quarters…..”
The Royal Docks area stretches from Canning Town to Gallions Reach, down to North Woolwich and the Thames Barrier. And of course bang in the centre of it is London City Airport.
Just imagine Central London with an airport in Trafalgar Square. The noise generated from its flights would dominate the area. Yet that is what is proposed for this new East London ‘city’.
I know the modern new offices and smart apartments will have top-class insulation. I know people will be aware of the airport when they move in. But none of it gets round the fact that the neighbourhood will be dominated by the roar of planes using London City Airport.
I suspect the airport is eyeing up the new business this upmarket city will bring. It would be in its commercial interest to do so. The income levels will be high enough for the new residents and workers to be able to use the airport in a way most existing local residents cannot.
But it would raise big equity issues if London City sought to expand on the back of these new heavily-insulated developments. It would be at the expense of the tens of thousands of people across large swathes of London who cannot afford the same level of insulation and indeed those with good insulation who are still troubled by the noise.
And this in not intended to come across as a criticism of the new developments or the economic activity and jobs they will generate. And I have absolutely no issue with people who, with their eyes open, choose to move close to the airport or to locate their business in the vicinity. They will have weighed up the pros and cons and made their decision. There is a big issue, though, if an airport such as London City located so close to residential properties (and with a noise footprint second only to Heathrow and Manchester), uses this sort of new development to expand at the expense of many other people who have fewer choices.
LONDON CITY OWNERS TRYING TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE AIRPORT WITH CURRENT EXPANSION PROPOSALS
19th August 2019
by John Stewart
London City, with the proposals for expansion contained in its Master Plan, is trying to fundamentally change the nature of the airport. It is revolution dressed up as evolution.
It started life 32 years ago as a niche business airport designed to serve the City of London and the growing financial centre in Docklands. It was allowed no more than 30,000 flights a year; in the early days all turbo-props.
Because it had been built so close to people’s homes, the airport was strictly regulated. No night flights; a strict weekend curfew between 12.30pm on Saturday and 12.30pm on Sunday; a limit on early morning and late evening flights; a better-than-average insulation package for the very local residents.
If the proposed expansion ever sees the light of day, there will be 151,000 flights allowed each year; no weekend break; and more early morning and late evening flights. Only the night flight ban would remain.
And it will have become another London airport serving the leisure market. Although the number of business passengers is expected to rise, it is the leisure market the expansion proposals are all about.
Currently London City is primarily a rush-hour airport, with relatively few planes mid-morning to mid-afternoon. It wants to fill those periods with leisure flights. The weekend would also be important for leisure. The proposal for more early morning and late evening flights is probably aimed at the business market.
It is becoming clear the new owners of the airport are on a mission to fundamentally change its nature. A consortium led by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan bought the airport in 2016 for £2bn, thought at the time to be a high price.
It is now clear what they want: a significant return on their investment by turning the airport into something it was never intended to be. They have brought in their own man to do the job. Robert Sinclair, with a background in business and finance, was appointed London City’s CEO about a year ago. He had been chief executive at Bristol Airport for nine years. Bristol is also owned by Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.
Their revolution is looking to sweep aside virtually all the safeguards put in place because of where the airport is situated: a weekend break; a lowish cap on flight numbers; a restriction on early morning and late night flights. No wonder a vibrant opposition campaign has grown up within weeks.
So why did you move close to an airport and then complain?
But I didn’t….
by John Stewart
4th August 2019
It’s a fair question.
But sometimes things are not as straightforward as the question implies.
Especially in the case of London City Airport, one of the UK’s newest airports.
London City is just 32 years old. It means a huge swathe of the population impacted by the airport and its flight paths lived in their current homes before it was even a twinkle in a developer’s eye.
And few people expected London City to reach the size it is today. It started life as a small airport. Strict conditions were laid down by the planning inspector because it was built in such a densely-populated area. Only 30,000 flights a year were permitted using turbo-prop aircraft.
Today it has around 80,000, with permission for 111,000 and a draft Master Plan proposing 151,000. Some may say people were naïve to put their faith in successive planning agreements but could this level of growth have really been foreseen by the average person?
And could anybody have foreseen the significant flight path changes? Could residents in Mottingham or Brixton or Lewisham really have predicted in 1987 that thirty years later they would be living under a concentrated flight path to London City Airport, with planes at a maximum height of 2,000ft?
Everybody doesn’t have the option of moving.
Generally, though not always, the wealthier you are, the more choices you have about moving. Many under the London City flight paths don’t have the option of leaving as London City planes fly over some of the poorest areas in the UK where many people have limited options as to where they can live. They may need to be near work to minimize travel costs, they may do shift work, they may be required to care for a disabled or elderly relative nearby.
Of course, many people who in recent years moved into the fast-expanding greater Docklands area knew they would be close to a busy airport. It is also true that a number of the newer properties are well-insulated. But I suspect that even these newcomers might have been taken by surprise by London City’s proposals to double flight numbers from their current level, end the 24 weekend break from the noise and add more flights in the early morning and late evening.
YOU DON’T NEED TO BE AGAINST FLYING TO OPPOSE CITY’S MASTER PLAN
by John Stewart, 29th June 2019
You could be an aviation enthusiast, a frequent flyer or a climate denier and still be critical of London City’s Master Plan published yesterday. How can an airport in this day and age propose to double flight numbers, remove weekend respite, increase early morning and late evening flights and offer the communities impacted nothing in return?
London City will argue that it is committed to only allowing quieter (and cleaner) planes. But all this will do, if these planes come on-stream as the airport hopes, is keep overall noise limits to much as they are at present for most people.
· No recognition that for the majority of people impacted across London by City aircraft a doubling in the number of planes will increase annoyance and disturbance.
· No acknowledgment that the current periods of relative quiet in the middle of the day will be punctuated with planes.
· No surveys undertaken to test people’s reaction to more early morning and late night evening aircraft.
· No apparent conception of how valued the weekend break from midday Saturday to midday Sunday, which has stood the test of time since the airport opened, is.
As a resident tweeted: “What benefits for the local community? Do you mean more noise for longer periods, more periods when we cannot open our windows, more periods of lack of conversation while an aircraft takes off.”
I cannot believe that the staff at London City – many of whom I know, like and respect – can be happy with this.
I can only conclude that at the very highest level City Airport looked at its low complaints figures which the Master Plan makes much off and concluded that those disturbed by noise are a loud but unrepresentative minority who can be sacrificed in the interest of the wider employment and economic benefits the Master Plan claims for expansion.
What a mistake! Airport after airport will tell you that complaint figures are not a reliable indication in themselves of the impact they have on local communities. I would suggest this is particularly so in the case of London City. It overflies some of the poorest and most ethnically diverse communities in the UK. It flies over street after street of people crammed into squalid, rented accommodation, often migrants newly arrived in London. This is not the demographic that is likely to fire off an email of complaint.
London City points out that this is just a draft Master Plan. It must learn lessons from this draft. It cannot expect anything but outright opposition from all sorts of quarters to a plan which offers most of the overflown virtually nothing but many more planes.
London City: softening us up for expansion?
by John Stewart, 23rd April 2019
London City Airport is up to something. The quirky story in last week’s Evening Standard is part of its new approach. The paper reported that the airport is planning to create a “chilled” atmosphere, featuring “muted colours, less background noise and better directions” as part of the £500 million redesign of its terminal which is due to be completed by 2022. The airport hopes that better the interior design will boost mental well-being of passengers
This is all very admirable but begs the question why London City is doing it. I suspect it is part of a charm offensive before it unveils proposals for a further expansion of the airport. This summer London City will publish its Master Plan where it will set out its ‘vision’ for the future. This is expected to include an option to lift the current cap on the number of flights permitted to use the airport each year.
To have any chance of getting permission to expand further the airport needs to do two things:
London City has a lot of catching up to do.
Its relationship with its very local area has tended to be quite good. The conditions set by the London Borough of Newham, the planning authority for the airport, attached to the four – yes, four - successful applications to expand the airport since it opened in 1989, have given some protection to those living close to the airport.
But it neglected the wider area its planes fly over. It made little effort to engage with communities or local authorities in these areas. Relations were at rock bottom. Most of the local authorities, furious at being routinely snubbed, opposed all its expansion plans. Things got so bad that when London City refused to send a representative to a key Waltham Forest committee, the council arranged for a fluffy puppet to sit in its chair!
This neglect of its wider catchment areas was one of the reasons behind calls to close it down. These have come from many in the local community, from the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and from the Green Party mayoral candidate Sian Berry. All argued that replacing the airport with a different development could create more jobs and do more for the local economy than the airport does and without its environmental downsides.
A major reason why the airport failed to woo its wider catchment area was that the then owners were simply in it to sell the airport at a profit. The new owners, who bought it for £2bn, are seen to be in it for the long-term. They realized things had to change.
London City is reaching out like never before. It has appointed new press and PR people. It has started to sponsor important receptions at party conferences. ‘Feel-good’ stories have begun to appear in the media. The airport is wooing the local authorities by visiting their leaders and chief executives. It is trying to portray the airport as the key economic driver of the region. To stand up that claim, of course, would require a lot more hard evidence than has so far been produced: London City contributes to the economy –yes; it’s a key driver of the regional economy – the jury is very much out.
A lot of what is being done is welcome.
More engagement with key stakeholders across a much wider region, with helpful staff in their community, planning, noise and environment teams.
But the underlying worry is that the airport’s big aim is to seek permission to lift the cap on the number of flights. 111,000 flights are allowed to use airport each year. (Over the last few years the actual number has hovered around 84,000). 111,000 is enough. London City may only be the 14th busiest airport in the UK but noise from its planes impacts more people than any airport bar Heathrow and Manchester. It is only the 94th busiest airport in Europe but, astonishingly, it impacts more people than mega airports like Schiphol, Madrid, Munich or Brussels. And the numbers impacted by noise will rise as there will be a lot of new homes built in East London over the next few years.
Let’s work together but not on an expanded airport.
Unlike diamonds, flight paths are not forever
by John Stewart
There is no doubt that the Civil Aviation Authority’s backing last month of London City’s concentrated flight paths was a huge blow to very many people.
But I suspect that is not the end of the matter. There may be renewed pressure on London City to offer some respite.
The pressure could come from three directions:
Local discontent will not go away. And may intensify as thousands more homes are built under or close to the flight path in East London over the next few years. These homes may be well-insulated and many of the newcomers will have some awareness that they will get aircraft noise. However, it is expected that, London City could come to impact at least 74,000 people which would mean it would overfly more people in the UK than any airport except Heathrow and Manchester and almost twice as many as Brussels or Schiphol. Will they all really keep quiet if they get no predicable break from the noise?
Flight paths at airports across London and the South East will be altered. Before Christmas NATS, the air traffic controllers, will publish a major report looking at how the flight paths changes at the different airports can mesh together. It is probable that NATS will not expect to see changes to London City’s flight paths but the wider changes will be so fundamental that nothing is guaranteed.
Heathrow is committed to introducing respite. Heathrow’s new flight paths are not expected to come in before 2025 (when a third runway would open if it is given final permission) but Heathrow flight paths which were rotated to give people respite would highlight just what a poor deal people were getting from London City.
Unlike diamonds, flight paths are not forever.
SE LONDON: A CHALLENGE TO BOTH LONDON CITY AND HEATHROW
by John Stewart 18/11/2018
Here’s your starter for 10. How many times during a typical year has the east wind blown above 5 knots between lunchtime Saturday and lunchtime Sunday?
The question is of more than quiz trivia interest to people in South East London because it is the only time many of them get a break from aircraft noise.
Here’s how it works:
West Wind: Planes landing at Heathrow; can be over 40 an hour
East Wind: Usually no Heathrow planes, but London City aircraft land in their concentrated corridor over swathes of SE London
Light East Wind: Heathrow planes still landing (because they only switch when the wind gets above about 5 knots) but City planes are also landing (because they switch immediately wind direction changes). Total can be over 50 planes an hour.
East wind above 5 knots Sat lunch – Sun lunch: No planes! Heathrow aircraft are landing over Windsor; and London City is shut.
Last year because of the beast from the east and its summer cousin we saw a lot of east wind but in a typical year it just blows about 30% of the time. How often is it over 5 decibels? I’m not sure. And how often is it over 5 decibels between Saturday lunch time and Sunday lunchtime? Even less. But that is the only time many in SE London get a break from the noise.
Heathrow and London City have started talking. When Heathrow introduces its new flight paths after 2025, there is the opportunity to provide respite through the introduction of multiple rotating flights (particularly if London City will play ball and remove its current single concentrated flight path). In the shorter term HACAN is speaking with both the airports and NATS to look at what could be done to ease the situation.
A bonus mark to those of you who added Christmas Day: City Airport is closed and an east wind above about 5 knots means Heathrow planes land over Windsor.
The human cost of London City’s concentrated flight paths
by John Stewart, 26/10/18
Let me first acknowledge that not all the 900,000 or so people overflown by planes to and from London City at heights of less than 7,000ft are driven mad by them. But, for those people who are affected, this week’s report from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) backing London City’s decision to concentrate its flight paths in 2016 was a sickening blow.
I can hear the sorrow and despair in their voices when they ring me up. Before 2016 more people were overflown by City Airport planes but the concentration brought all the aircraft over selected communities. Complaints to the airport shot up fourfold within a year.
Those distressed by the constant overflying – and distressed is not too strong a word – had put their hope in the CAA’s review of the concentrated flight paths. They accepted that they should have a share of the planes but were calling for further flight paths to be created so they could get a break from the noise. Their hopes were cruelly dashed this week. It is probably too early to say whether all hope has been extinguished by certainly the mood is one of deep sadness.
Most people had lived in their homes before the flight paths were concentrated in 2016. Some people had been there long before the airport opened in the late 1980s. And many feel doubly cheated. Back in 2009 London City first changed its flight paths to allow the larger planes coming into service to use a wider arc when departing. There had been a consultation but residents weren’t aware of it. Then in 2016 these new flight paths more or less became the concentrated flight paths.
In some ways the City Airport residents have been desperately unlucky. The 2016 flight path changes followed a consultation that was totally inadequate but which followed the correct CAA procedures. Partly as a result of the City Airport experience, the CAA has radically altered the procedures to allow for more community consultation and for real options to be presented to residents.
But rather than hide behind their good fortune in getting away with a shabby plan, City Airport should embrace at least the spirit of the new guidelines and come up with a package of measures to ease the burden on the many residents who have lost out from their decision to concentrate their flight paths. Over the next few months we will be proposing practical actions London City can take.
