Newham Council warns London City Airport over night time disruption, for 3 years, for its building works

Campaigners against London City Airport expansion fear years of night time disruption if a planning application is approved.  The group “Stop City Airport” say long-suffering residents in the area are already facing increased noise issues due to Crossrail works and from the proposed Chinese business park by ABP (Associated British Ports). Stop City Airport raised its latest concerns after a letter from Newham Council was made public, expressing fears over night-time construction work. Campaigner Alan Haughton said: “There will be no relief for residents. Aircraft noise all day long and as soon as that finishes, non-stop piling for three years at least.” The council’s senior development manager Chris Gascoigne said the airport was proposing a construction programme lasting up to 7 years, with 3 of those being 24 hours a day. He commented: “In our view the proposed night time construction noise impacts are not acceptable and represent a potential reason for refusal of planning permission.” The airport has been asked if it can reduce operation hours, to do construction during the day, but council officers have yet to get a reply. The airport’s plans include 7 new aircraft parking stands, a 3-storey passenger pier, noise barriers and a 260-bedroom hotel.
.

 

Newham Council warns London City Airport over expansion disruption

10.7.2014 (Wharf.co.uk)

city airport sign 480.jpg

Campaigners against London City Airport expansion fear years of night time disruption if a planning application is approved.

Stop City Airport released a statement (see below) last week saying long-suffering residents in the area were already facing increased noise issues due to Crossrail works and from the proposed Chinese business park by ABP.

It raised its latest concerns after a letter was made public from Newham Council, expressing fears over night-time construction work.

Campaigner Alan Haughton said: “There will be no relief for residents. Aircraft noise all day long and as soon as that finishes, non-stop piling for three years at least.

“There’s already outrage in the area, not just over the airport, but the Crossrail works, which is probably why Newham has stepped in.”

The council’s senior development manager Chris Gascoigne has written to planning consultants working on behalf of the airport.

He said the airport was proposing a construction programme lasting up to seven years, with three of those being 24 hours a day.

He wrote: “In our view the proposed night time construction noise impacts are not acceptable and represent a potential reason for refusal of planning permission.”

The airport has been asked whether it can reduce operation hours in order to carry out construction during the day, but officers have yet to receive a response.

When asked about the letter, both Newham Council and City Airport played down the row.

A council spokesman said: “The planning application process is ongoing, so residents should ensure their views are known.”

He recommended residents lodge their opinions with the council.

A statement released by the airport said: “London City Airport is working closely with Newham to mitigate the effects of noise on the community during the construction phase of the City Airport Development Programme.

“The airport is committed to using best practicable means to deliver an acceptable programme of construction hours and reducing noise impacts, and is in dialogue with Newham as to how this can best be delivered.”

The airport’s plans include seven new aircraft parking stands, a three-storey passenger pier, noise barriers and a 260-bedroom hotel.

http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/07/newham-council-warns-london-ci.html

.

.


.

London City Airport residents face up to 7 years of night time construction work

July 1st 2014 (Stop  City Airport)

 

London City Airport residents face up to 7 years of Night Time Construction work.

Newham Council have warned London City Airport that the impacts of night time construction work may see them refuse planning permission for their new Development. [1]

London City Airport’s current Development planning application will see construction work carried out over a 7 year period, including 3 years of full 24 hour work, where noise intensive construction activities like piling will occur at night.

Newham Council have found that the resulting noise impacts are considerable and would significantly impact on residents in North Woolwich. North Woolwich residents currently suffer from the Airports operational noise as well as construction noise from Crossrail. Further construction work like the Chinese ABP development could also see them impacted.

London City Airport is not willing to temporarily alter its business operations to facilitate construction at it’s own development and have submitted noise mitigation measures which Newham Council have rejected.

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/post/90440914910/press-release-london-city-airport-residents-face-up

 Stop City Airport 

http://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/

 

.

.


 

.

See also:

THE FUTURE WATCHES THE AIRPORT – 21st July at 11am

eye ringThere will be a protest against the expansion of London City Airport.  Newham Council will soon decide whether it should expand. A group of local campaigners, working with the affected local community, plans to protest – to show the airport that whatever the Council’s decision – there will be uproar if they try to expand.

If Newham Council allow the airport to expand it will mean more air pollution, more noise pollution and more road traffic – especially for the communities who live around the airport – who are some of London’s most vulnerable.  It will also mean that people will lose their homes to allow for the airport’s expansion.

Details of the protest    Here    and details on Facebook

 


 

.

London City Airport now re-consulting on its expansion planning application

London City Airport has a planning application, initially submitted in July 2013, originally with 28th October as the comment deadline, for “Works to demolish existing buildings and structures and provide additional infrastructure and passenger facilities at London City Airport without changes to the number of permitted flights or opening hours previously permitted pursuant to planning permission.” The comment deadline was extended to 18th December. The local authority, Newham Council, has now announced that it will be re-consulting on the application. The deadline for comment is now 10th July, with the application expected to go to committee on 23rd July 2014. There have so been 1,282 responses to the application, all of which appear to be objecting to it. The airport said last year they were extending the deadline so”as many local people and wider stakeholders as possible can make their voices heard.”

Click here to view full story…


Public consultation on London City Airport planning applications extended to 18th December

October 30, 2013        Newham Council are extending their public consultation on London City Airport planning applications to midday on 18 December 2013. The deadline had been 28th October, but the application is mainly online, and the council planning website was down during some of the time. The planning application was presented in such an impenetrable manner on the Newham website that it was effectively impossible for ordinary people to understand what was proposed. Now Newham says that : “Due to the number of responses to the London City Airport planning consultation, including many who have asked for extra time to submit a response, we have decided to extend the deadline…. The major planning applications propose additional infrastructure, passenger facilities and a new hotel at the airport. We will shortly be publicising the extended consultation deadline including writing to more than 25,000 homes in the local area.” Local campaigners welcomed the extension and said the impacts of the expansion by London City Airport will affect the local area for generations to come, so it is important that local residents have the opportunity to get their voices heard.

 Click here to view full story…

 


 

London City Airport expansion plan – inadequate consultation by Newham – but campaigners have produced guidance on how to respond

October 26, 2013

London City Airport applied back in July for expansion. While the application does not propose to increase the number of flights, it crucially changes the split between scheduled jets and jet centre movements leading to a change in the 2010 baseline public safety zone. The application is to demolish some buildings and structures, and upgrade four aircraft stands, adding 7 new aircraft parking stands. It would also mean extension and modification of the existing airfield, including the creation of an extended taxi lane.There would be changes to parking and vehicle access, and an extension to the terminal building. The consultation in on the Newham Council website (though on some days it has not bee accessible) – it ends on 28th October. There is a huge list of documents, with no accessible detail, making comment by ordinary people nearly impossible. London City Airport campaigners have located the key information, and produced a simple response email which anyone can (adapt and) use. There are real fears of more noise from the airport and building space removed form the enlarged public safety zones. Do send in a reply if you agree these proposals should be opposed.

Click here to view full story…

 

 

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Reports on Thames Estuary airport plan show it is costly, risky for the taxpayer and a potential failure

Serious doubt has been cast on the prospect of a Thames estuary airport plan going ahead. Four reports have been produced for the Airports Commission, to aid their consideration of whether an estuary airport should be one of the short listed options to be taken forward, in September. One of three reports prepared for the commission published on Friday has said of the estuary plan: “Overall, the challenges to transition are considerable and amount to a significant cost and risk to the taxpayer in terms of commercial negotiations, infrastructure development and potential failure.” Another report says Heathrow would have to close if the estuary scheme went ahead and that Heathrow’s owners would have to be paid compensation of between £13.5 billion and £21.5 billion. The third report cited possible transport improvement costs associated with the new airport of between £10.1bn and £17.2bn for road, and up to £27 billion for rail. The report on environmental impacts which estimated that moving affected wildlife away from the new airport could cost as much as £2bn.

.


 

Airports Commission website

Inner Thames estuary airport studies


 

Boris Island Thames Estuary airport ‘dead in the water’ after cost estimates soar

By Joseph Watts, Political Correspondent (Evening Standard)

11.7.2014

The Boris Island airport plan suffered a “potential death blow” today as three reports said costs may soar billions of pounds above the Mayor’s estimates.

The bill for new transport links to a Thames Estuary airport could be more than double predictions, said experts.

Researchers outlined huge further costs of compensating Heathrow’s owners and removing a sunken wreck full of explosives. They also questioned the plan’s commercial viability, suggesting it could lead to higher passenger costs and business lost to competitors.

Most people quizzed by researchers thought the estuary plan carried “significant risk, uncertainty and cost”.

The study comes after another found an estuary airport would have “large adverse impacts” on the environment.

London Assembly Lib-Dem leader Caroline Pidgeon said: “This is a potential death blow to the Mayor’s dream.

“It’s bad enough he has spent millions in taxpayers’ money on promoting his fantasy. Now his proposals have been exposed as based on wildly inaccurate estimates.” Labour group transport spokesperson Val Shawcross said the study confirmed that the Mayor’s plan was “pie in the sky”, while the Greens’ Darren Johnson said: “Boris Island must now be dead in the water.”

The Airports Commission ordered four feasibility studies of an estuary air hub. The first looked at environmental impacts and was published last week.

The other three look at the impacts of moving a hub from Heathrow, the economic effects and road and rail links. It was the final report on transport, by engineering firm Jacobs, that outlined spiralling transport costs.

The Mayor’s 2013 estimate suggested road links would cost up to £10.1 billion and rail £13.5 billion. The Jacobs report claimed they may rocket to £17 billion and £27 billion respectively.

A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers said Heathrow owners may need compensation of £21.5 billion. Another by Leigh Fisher says the cost of tackling risks posed by the wreck of a Second World War munitions ship five miles from the airport site are unknown. But it concludes SS Richard Montgomery, still holding 1,500 tons of TNT, may have to be made safe or removed.

The Mayor’s chief aviation adviser Daniel Moylan said the reports would be analysed but he emphasised how they also highlighted economic benefits an estuary hub would provide.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/boris-island-thames-estuary-airport-dead-in-the-water-after-cost-estimates-soar-9599898.html

.

.


.

Thames Estuary airport poses ‘considerable risk’ to taxpayer

11.7.2014 (BBC)

Artists impression of Foster and Partners' proposed Isle of Grain airport The proposed Thames Estuary airport would be built on the Isle of Grain

An airport in the Thames Estuary would present a “considerable cost and risk to the taxpayer”, according to reports published by the Airports Commission.

An estuary airport on the Isle of Grain has been proposed by London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Four studies into the feasibility of the airport have been published.

They state airlines and passengers believe the scheme would carry “significantly more risk than opportunity”.

One of the reports also stated that explosives on a sunken World War Two munitions ship in the estuary, the SS Richard Montgomery, would need to be removed or treated before the airport could be constructed.

It added: “Full containment or removal are deemed high-risk and high-cost options, potentially requiring evacuation of the local area for a period of many weeks or months.”

‘Significant risk’

The Airports Commission has been tasked with examining the need for additional UK airport capacity. It has shortlisted three options, which include adding a third runway at Heathrow, lengthening an existing runway there, and a new runway at Gatwick.

However, the commission, led by businessman Sir Howard Davies, will also consider a new airport in the Isle of Grain.

The three latest reports looked at operational feasibility and attitudes towards the airport, socio-economic impacts and surface access.

The first report, which looked into the environmental impact of the airport, said it could cost up to £2bn to provide alternative habitats for wildlife if the airport was built.

Boris Johnson suggested the Isle of Grain in Kent as the site for a new, four-runway airport

One of the reports states that Heathrow would have to be closed for a new hub airport in the Thames to open.

It states: “Overall, the challenges to transition are considerable and amount to a significant cost and risk to the taxpayer in terms of commercial negotiations, infrastructure development and potential failure.”

Daniel Moylan, who is the mayor of London’s chief adviser on aviation, said: “Our team will now analyse these reports in detail but it appears they confirm the huge benefits to the country’s prosperity that would flow from moving Heathrow to a new location and prove that there are challenges, but no showstoppers, to achieving that.

“The case studies of how this has been successfully done in other countries are particularly valuable.

“Of course there are risks, but all the proposals being considered by the commission carry risk.

“The Airports Commission can have no alternative but to include the estuary option on its formal shortlist.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28253710

Related BBC Stories

 

Read more »

Four Inner Thames estuary airport studies for Airports Commission finally kill off “Boris Island”

The Airports Commission has now published all four of the studies it has commissioned on an Inner Thames Estuary (ITE) airport. These reports are on environmental impacts, operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport, socio-economic impacts, and surface access. The first report, on environmental impacts was utterly damning, confirming the massive extent of the harm done to highly conserved habitats  and their wildlife, and the near impossibility of successfully moving the wildlife elsewhere. Now the report on the feasibility of moving the airport shows the problems of flood risk, fog, wind direction, bird strike, explosives on the SS Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal – with many practically insurmountable. The report on socio-economic impacts demonstrates that aeronautical charges would have to be very high to pay for the airport, and be too high to compete with Dubai etc. Heathrow would have to close, at immense cost.  The surface access report shows the cost of even minimal rail services to get most passengers to the airport would be £10 billion and more like £27 billion for a good service. The cost of road improvements would be £10 to £17 billion. The reports’ conclusions now make it nearly inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed. 
.

Airports Commission reports final kill “Boris Island”

10.7.2014 (the “No Estuary Airport Campaign”
(South East Essex Friends of the Earth).

.
On 4 July the first of four reports prepared for the Airports Commission dealt a body blow to Boris Johnson’s plan to close Heathrow and create a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.

On 10th July the three remaining reports were released, finally laying to rest any hope the Mayor of London had of destroying the Isle of Grain in Kent and parts of south Essex to fulfil his dream.

The sheer level of detailed analysis contained in the reports, and the conclusions reached, now make it inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed.  Never before has so much effort gone into the analysis of the merits of the various estuary schemes and the conclusions are crystal clear.

Jon Fuller of the “No Estuary Airport Campaign” said: –  “the most detailed study into proposals to build a Thames Estuary Airport has categorically proven this to be the wrong location for a hub airport. It has always, and always will be unsuitable for an international airport. We appeal to the Mayor of London to stop wasting time, effort and huge sums of public money in promoting this scheme. It is time for him to accept that his proposal is dead and we appeal to him to now focus upon what he can do to reduce the noise and pollution misery inflicted upon the residents of west London. It is time to reduce night flights and ensure the cost of flying reflects the impact it imposes upon millions of people.”


 

 

Airports Commission website

Inner Thames estuary airport studies


1.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

On 4 July the first report for the Airports Commission looked at the environmental impacts of the proposed estuary airport and concluded that the scale of environmental damage and the legal protection to wildlife habitat probably made the challenge of building the airport insurmountable.
 
A devastating analysis of the Mayor’s plan can be seen at   
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/08/airports-commission-sink-boris-johnson-s-estuary-airport-pla

The 3 reports published on 10th July finally killed off any prospect of the scheme ever getting off the ground.

2.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

See 11-1 Summary and Conclusions   (PDF pages 92-94)
 
Flood risk, fog, wind direction, even bird strike may be surmountable, but the SS Richard Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal are not. And the killer business and political argument is that Southend Airport and London City Airports would have to close.
 
A Thames Estuary Airport reduces UK capacity.
 
The need for a phased transition from Heathrow to an estuary airport is also seen as exceptionally challenging.

3.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

See Executive Summary: Pages 2 – 5 (PDF 4 – 7)
 
The PWC report identifies a large number of benefits and losses, weighing up the various costs. The report is not all one sided, but the cost of closing Heathrow is almost certainly ruled out with the conclusion that: –      “Our review has assessed the existing evidence in relation to the compensation that would be payable to the owners of Heathrow. The current estimate is in order of between £13.5 and £21.5 billion for Heathrow.”

 

4.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

See Conclusions. 8.2   (from page 136).

The Jacobs report states that (at 8.2.11) “By 2050, rail option 4 is the only credible option, due to the  predicted growth of London, and even then some capacity issue still remain.”  At table 30, page 139 option 4 is said to be:    £26.970,000 million !

At 8.2.16 the new road building costs are said to be between £10.1bn and £17.2bn. And the environmental impacts identified on page 140 are shown to be insurmountable.

 


 


Airports Commission

Open consultation

Inner Thames estuary airport studies

The Airports Commission is seeking views on a number of inner Thames estuary study reports. Specifically, we are inviting responses in relation to 2 questions:

– is there information in the reports which is factually inaccurate?
– is there any new information or evidence that you wish us to consider before making our decision?

Email to:   Estuary.Studies@airports.gsi.gov.uk   by 5pm on Friday 8th August 2014.


 

.

Looking at the conclusions of these reports:

1.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 1: environmental impacts

Report for Airports Commission on environmental impact sinks Boris’s estuary airport plans

Boris Johnson’s dreams of a massive airport in the Thames Estuary have had a major setback, from the new report produced for the Airports Commission, looking at the environmental impacts. The study shows it would cause huge environmental, financial and safety risks and would cause “large scale direct habitat loss” to hundreds of thousands of migrating birds. The cost of creating replacement habitats could exceed £2 billion and may not even be possible. Even if replacement habitat could be found, planes using the airport would still be at a “high risk” of lethal bird strike. In order to counter this risk, even larger areas of habitat would need to be destroyed to secure the airport. The report also found huge regulatory hurdles to any potential estuary airport going ahead. Under environmental regulations,the airport’s backers would have to prove there were “imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)” for placing the airport in such an environmentally sensitive area. Even if that could be proven, they would also need to demonstrate that all of the habitat displaced by the airport could be placed elsewhere. The report found that while this was “technically possible,” it was highly uncertain, as such a large scale displacement had never been attempted before.

Click here to view full story…

 


 

2.    Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 2: operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport

The report, by Leigh Fisher, looks at flood risk, fog, bird strikes, wind, explosives on the SS Richard Montgomery, airspace implications, energy facilities, transition and attitudes.

The concluding paragraphs of the section called
OVERALL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS states: (Page 92)
“Examined individually, the topics addressed by each chapter of this report have, in the main, highlighted significant but perhaps not insurmountable challenges and risks to the successful development of an airport in the inner Thames Estuary. Considered together, however, they appear to present a substantial risk that would incur large costs, in the order of billions of pounds, to appropriately manage. Part of that risk may not be mitigated or costed to a reasonable degree, including the risk to safety, the on time delivery of the airport, the consequential impacts on local and regional economies, the attractiveness of
the airport to airlines and their customers, and ultimately the success of a hub airport located in the inner Thames Estuary.
“There are many aspects to the Estuary airport scheme that have no useful precedent nationally or internationally. For example, there are no known examples of successful treatment of explosives such as are held within the SS Richard Montgomery. There are no examples of LNG Terminals located adjacent to large airports and no real world cases of an LNG facility suffering a major storage tank fire or explosion. Equally, there are no known examples of an airport of comparable scale relocating the distances involved, with the requirement to relocate and house (or make redundant, replace and house) a workforce of
considerable size. The complexity of the interdependencies between airlines, airports, businesses and passengers means that any delay to programme delivery could have far-reaching consequences. Yet there appear to be many issues that will involve complex commercial negotiations, planning policy and execution, stakeholder commitment, social change, and substantial amounts of construction, all of which carry great risk of compromise to delivery by 2030.”
.
.


.
3.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

 Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 3: socio-economic impacts

The report, by PWC, looks at  the rationale for airport closure, commercial considerations, national and local socio-economic impacts and local catalytic impacts and spatial implications.
It comes to no specific conclusions, though a few paragraphs are copied below here:
Our review suggests that the commercial assumptions required to make an inner Thames Estuary airport commercially viable would require aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues per passenger to be significantly higher in real terms than at Heathrow and competing European hubs
…..
High capacity utilisation would also be required from the outset. Failure to capture sufficient
passengers from Heathrow airport could push charges higher in order to remain viable, but this is likely to offer a greater competitive advantage to competing hubs in Europe and the Middle East.   Available evidence suggests that these hubs will have the capacity to handle additional traffic when the Estuary airport opens. All of this means that Heathrow will need to close in order to make an inner Thames Estuary airport commercially viable.
….
The resources invested in building a new airport in the inner Thames Estuary will have substantial economic impacts. However, these impacts are another way of measuring the cost of a scheme and under government appraisal guidelines (as set out in the Green Book) should be treated as a cost, not a benefit. It is also important to highlight that the activity created in the construction phase will largely be temporary because once construction is finished, they will no longer be needed.
….
Operating an airport in the Thames Estuary will also have large-scale employment and GVA effects, as can be seen from around Heathrow at the moment. TfL have estimated the direct, indirect and induced effects of the operational phase of an inner Estuary hub airport to be in the region of 280,000 jobs and £20.9 billion in GVA per annum in 2030, rising to 388,000 jobs and £42.3 billion in GVA by 2050.  These estimates are critically dependent on the airport being a commercial success and achieving passenger traffic of 90 million per annum on opening in 2030, rising to 170 million passengers per annum in 2050. These forecasts are significantly higher than the Airports Commission forecasts in
2050…..A more fundamental economic impact from aviation is the catalytic or supply side impacts from improving the UK’s connectivity with the rest of the world. There is extensive academic literature capturing catalytic effects via the association between aviation connectivity and GDP, although the direction of causality in this relationship is unproven.
….
The review of local economic impacts shows that an inner Thames Estuary proposal has the potential to generate approximately 98,000 additional jobs in 2030 across the six local authorities closest to the proposed airport, a 23.5% increase in the current baseline forecast. However, the deliverability of this employment uplift and its potential benefit to local people may be constrained by local housing availability, labour supply, availability of land and surface access. These constraints are likely to be experienced differently by individual authorities depending on their opportunities and barriers to growth.

.
.


.

4.  Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

Inner Thames estuary feasibility study 4: surface access

This report by Jacobs looks at the 4 proposals for an estuary airport and the road and rail surface transport issues.They say:
The assumptions and surface access options proposed in each of these four submissions were reviewed by Jacobs early in the study programme. A key assumption made in three of the proposals was a high public transport mode share of 60-65% for air passengers making surface access trips to the airport. Foster + Partners and MTTRA stated explicitly in their 2013 submissions that the rail mode share for air passengers would be 60% while the Mayor of London indicated that for testing purposes it was assumed all public transport trips would use rail. These submissions also indicated that a high proportion of airport employees would commute using public transport, ranging from 60% using rail (identified in both the MTTRA and Foster + Partners proposals) to an overall 75% public transport mode share (identified by the Mayor of London) – as with passengers, the Mayor assumed for testing purposes that all employee commuting trips by public transport would be made by rail.

While the submissions differed markedly in terms of surface transport proposals they put forward, there were a number of common elements across many, as follows:
 The provision of an express service via High Speed 1 (HS1) from St. Pancras connecting to the airport via a spur to the south east of Gravesend – included in all submissions with minor variations and assumed by Jacobs to take approximately 26 minutes between St. Pancras and the airport;

 The extension of both branches of Crossrail from Abbey Wood in the south via Dartford,
Gravesend and Hoo Junction and from Shenfield in the north via Billericay – the southern branch extension was included in all three submissions, while both MTTRA and Foster + Partners included a northern branch extension – the southern branch service was assumed to take approximately 51 minutes between Tottenham Court Road and the airport;

 The provision of a semi-fast service from Waterloo to the airport via Bromley South and Swanley – included in the Foster + Partners and MTTRA submissions, and IAAG highlighted the potential for a similar service to Waterloo via Ebbsfleet/Gravesend – this was assumed to take 42 minutes between Waterloo and the airport;

 Regional services linking to North Kent and South Essex (via a river crossing to the Fenchurch Street line) – included in the Mayor of London, IAAG and Foster + Partners submissions.

In addition, the Mayor of London proposed a new express service from Waterloo via London Bridge, Canary Wharf and Barking Riverside that was assumed to take 28 minutes to travel between Waterloo and the airport. This and the schemes summarised above were assembled into four rail packages for assessment.

 

…..
They looked at 4 options, for rail services, from just covering the minimum requirements, to more extensive services with more lines.
They conclude, on page 138 that:

Thus in summary, while rail Option 1 would accommodate predicted demand in 2030, it is dependent on 4 rail paths per hour being available on HS1 and a significant proportion of ITE passengers (around 45%) would experience crush capacity loadings of above 90% on the central sections of Crossrail.  The rail elements of this option would cost around £5bn, rising to around £10bn with rail and optimism bias included.
In comparison, rail Option 4 would provide an additional express rail service to London (the AEX), which would both improve the resilience on relying on available HS1 train paths, and provide faster connections to south and west central London. The predicted Crossrail sub mode share of this option reduces to 27%, so fewer ITE airport users would have to experience Crossrail crush capacities in the core sections. However, the rail elements of this option would cost around £13bn, rising to around £27bn with rail and optimism bias included. By 2050, rail option 4 is the only credible option, due to the predicted growth of London, and even then some capacity issue still remain.
.
.
On roads they say:
Roads assessment
8.2.12 The roads assessment involved using a route assignment model to forecast the impact of road trips to the ITE accounting for the impacts on capacity related purely to expected growth in background traffic. The costs of mitigating for these background traffic-related impacts have not been assigned to the airport.
8.2.13 The analysis detailed the following road widening requirements due to the ITE airport, covering works required in both 2030 and 2050 – our model indicated that these links exceed 100% of capacity as a result of airport-related traffic:
 88km widening of the M25 (73km single lane widening and 15 km double lane widening);
 17km single lane widening of the M2;
 17km widening of the A2 (2km single lane widening and 15km double lane widening);
 Around 30km single lane widening of the A12/A127/A13 roads on their approach to the M25 from outside London.
8.2.14 Additionally, the construction of the ITE airport brings the predicted Volume/Capacity Ratios (VCRs) above the critical 85% threshold on the following links, and additional road widening may be required as follows:
 20km single lane widening of the M25;
 3km single lane widening of the M2;
 Around 55km single lane widening of the A12/A127/A13 in various locations.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Read more »

MP for Arundel & South Downs, Nick Herbert, raises Gatwick flight path trial concerns

Arundel & South Downs MP Nick Herbert has raised concerns about aircraft noise over Downland villages resulting from the ADNID flight path trial from Gatwick. This is the one that flies over Warnham and nearby villages, and has caused uproar and extensive protest to the west and south west of Gatwick. Mr Herbert has receiving numerous complaints from constituents in Kirdford, Wisborough Green, Pulborough and West Grinstead, who are getting lower flying aircraft and noise over their villages. Mr Herbert has now written to Mr Wingate seeking clarification as to whether the trial route may be adopted in the future, reiterating that this would cause unacceptable disruption to the affected villages. People need reassurance that this flightpath will not become permanent. Mr Herbert said: “I think this foreshadows a longer-term concern, which is that further expansion at Gatwick could result in greater noise from flights over this part of West Sussex, as well as increasing development pressures on the County which are already a real problem.” Earlier a group of 5 MPs (Crispin Blunt, Paul Beresford, Nicholas Soames, Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry) formed a group to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a 2nd runway.
.

 

MP for Arundel and South Downs, Nick Herbert, raises Gatwick flight concerns

8 July 2014 (Nick Herbert’s website)

Arundel & South Downs MP Nick Herbert has raised concerns about aircraft noise over Downland villages resulting from a trial flight path from Gatwick.

Mr Herbert wrote to the Chief Executive of Gatwick Airport about aircraft noise after receiving numerous complaints from constituents in Kirdford, Wisborough Green, Pulborough and West Grinstead.    [These villages are some 25 - 30 km from Gatwick.  Map ]

Residents say that the new flight path, which is being trialled until next month, results in lower flying aircraft and noise over their villages.

The flight path trials have been formulated by the Civil Aviation Authority and are part of a consultation about London airspace.

In a reply to Mr Herbert, Stuart Wingate, Chief Executive of Gatwick Airport, said that the trial would run for a maximum of six months, until 17 August, after which the flight paths would revert to their previous configuration.

He also apologised for any disturbances caused during the trial.

Mr Herbert has now written again to Mr Wingate seeking clarification as to whether the trial route may be adopted in the future, reiterating that this would cause unacceptable disruption to the affected villages.

Nick Herbert commented: “This trial flightpath is causing great nuisance to many of my constituents.  Local residents may be relieved to hear that this is a trial which will end next month, but clearly will want reassurance that this flightpath will not become permanent.**

Mr Herbert added: “I think this foreshadows a longer-term concern, which is that further expansion at Gatwick could result in greater noise from flights over this part of West Sussex, as well as increasing development pressures on the County which are already a real problem.”

http://www.nickherbert.com/news.php/540/MP%20raises%20Gatwick%20flight%20concerns.


**  Reassurance that it won’t become permanent could be wishful thinking – if he is not aware of the current consultation to consider making it permanent !

Local ITV reports the story at

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-07-09/mp-raises-concern-about-new-flight-paths-from-gatwick-airport/


Curiously the Stewart Wingate reply has dates that are at variance with the official NATS aeronautical information supplement 12/2014. That states that the trial commences 10th Feb 2014 and finishes 2359 on 8th August 2014. Stewart has it going on until 17th August.!


.

Earlier

Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows second runway

8.3.2014

(West Sussex County Times)

I have received a great number of letters and emails from distressed residents in Warnham and Rusper, who tell me that they are being plagued by a constant stream of noisy aircraft taking off from Gatwick towards the west starting at 6am.

Many of them have complained directly to Gatwick Airport, the CAA and NATS but have yet to be satisfied on a number of points.

There has to be some consultation before a trial flight path change can be commenced. This was apparently carried out, although most local residents were completely unaware of the trial before the noise began. However there are several outstanding questions to which I am urgently seeking answers:

Exactly what is being trialled?

Why is any change needed?

On what criteria will the trial be assessed?

Why does it need to continue for six months?

How is it being monitored?

Some local residents are writing to me from addresses which should not be directly under the flight paths as advised by the customer relations department at Gatwick, which suggests that pilots are not adhering to the specified trial route. Anyone who suspects that planes are deviating from the prescribed route should immediately report it to Gatwick, using the email address noise.line@gatwickairport.com

The fears of local residents, many of whom bought their houses specifically for their peaceful surroundings having researched the Gatwick routes in advance, are that this is simply a prelude to making a more concerted case for a second runway at Gatwick. I have no idea whether this is true.

But there is no doubt at all that the misery currently being experienced by local residents foreshadows what would be a permanent feature of life in the area if a second runway were to be built to the south of the existing one. I have made my opposition to a second Gatwick runway many times in public and private, and am happy to reiterate this now.

The demands it would make on our stretched infrastructure would be, in my view, unsupportable given the amount of development already in the pipeline which is being carefully planned to grow the community in a sustainable way.

Given the strength of the reaction to this trial, which suggests that it is not proving successful, I hope that it will not be necessary for the experiment to last for the full six months. I am in the meantime making urgent enquiries at the highest levels of all the agencies involved and will be visiting Warnham on Sunday to support residents and experience the issue for myself.

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/columnists/francis-maude-noise-misery-foreshadows-second-runway-1-5919207

.

.


 

.

Surrey and Sussex MPs oppose Gatwick runway ‘disaster’

Five MPs have begun a campaign against the building of a 2nd Gatwick runway. The Conservative MPs, who represent Sussex, Surrey and Kent constituencies, said the scheme for the airport near Crawley would be “a disaster” for communities and the environment – and there was “serious local concern” at the plan. Reigate MP Crispin Blunt, one of the members of the newly-formed Gatwick Coordination Group, said: “If Gatwick expands in the way that’s planned, it will need many tens of thousands of new people working there, and they are all going to need somewhere to live. The airport at the moment are providing a preposterous suggestion that these people are largely going to come from existing communities in Croydon and Brighton. Well I’m afraid that’s just simply not the case.” Mr Blunt also said no new railway line had been proposed and the London to Brighton commuter line was already “the busiest commuter line in the country” and at capacity. The other 4 MPs behind the campaign are Sir Paul Beresford, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry, MP for Wealden. Crawley Conservative MP Henry Smith said he declined to endorse the press release.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=21879


 

.

MPs initiate “Gatwick Coordination Group” – saying 2nd runway is not in the local or national interest

MPs Crispin Blunt, Sir Paul Beresford, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames, Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry have formed the Gatwick Coordination Group. The Group is established to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a 2nd runway. The MPs’ group released a statement saying they believe a 2nd Gatwick runway would be a disaster for the surrounding communities and environment. They say the level of development, associated with an airport serving nearly three times as many passengers as it does now, would devastate the local environment and leave the UK with its major airport in the wrong place. Also that there is no adequate plan yet presented to provide the necessary infrastructure, of all types, to support this development. “The size of the Gatwick site only lends itself to a single runway airport, serving as a sensible, competitive alternate to London’s main hub airport. While they pursue that objective, Gatwick Airport Limited will have our support, but this proposal is not in the local interest, nor is it in the national interest, and this group will work to prove that case.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=21867

 

 


 

.

There is a lot of information about the flight path trial, and the current Gatwick airport consultation on future changes to its airspace, at http://www.sussexgreenliving.co.uk/2014/06/gatwick-airport-new-flight-path-consultation/

 

Gatwick Airport New Flight Path Consultation

CAGNE communities against Gatwick noise emissions

 

 

 

 

 

Post submitted on behalf of CAGNE – Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions.  This page tells you where to find more information about the new  flight path plan and what you can do to object.

Your Action is Needed Now!

Online consultation:

Please participate, there is a deadline of 14th August, Gatwick Airport are looking to change Noise Preferential Routes and your home could be affected. The changes would bring a constant stream of planes, very low over communities not affected by planes before – forever!

The consultation and online response form are at   www.gatwickairport.com/gatwickairspaceconsultation.

Suggested answers can be found on this page.

You can also send a response with a covering letter to:  FREEPOST RSLG ATKL LBAE, Gatwick Consultation, Ipsos MORI, Research Services House, Elmgrove Road, Harrow HA1 2QG.

(However, Gatwick Airport do not guarantee receiving posted letters unless they are sent recorded).

Details and a lot of information at

http://www.sussexgreenliving.co.uk/2014/06/gatwick-airport-new-flight-path-consultation/

.

.

.

 


 

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Report for Airports Commission on environmental impact sinks Boris’s estuary airport plans

Boris Johnson’s dreams of a massive airport in the Thames Estuary have had a major setback, from the new report produced for the Airports Commission, looking at the environmental impacts. The study shows it would cause huge environmental, financial and safety risks and would cause “large scale direct habitat loss” to hundreds of thousands of migrating birds. The cost of creating replacement habitats could exceed £2 billion and may not even be possible. Even if replacement habitat could be found, planes using the airport would still be at a “high risk” of lethal bird strike.  In order to counter this risk, even larger areas of habitat would need to be destroyed to secure the airport. The report also found huge regulatory hurdles to any potential estuary airport going ahead. Under environmental regulations,the airport’s backers would have to prove there were “imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)” for placing the airport in such an environmentally sensitive area. Even if that could be proven, they would also need to demonstrate that all of the habitat displaced by the airport could be placed elsewhere. The report found that while this was “technically possible,” it was highly uncertain, as such a large scale displacement had never been attempted before.
.

 

Airports Commission sink Boris Johnson’s estuary airport plans

By Adam Bienkov

8 July 2014 (Politics.co.uk)

Migrating birds in the Thames Estuary would cause a "high risk" of bird strike.

Migrating birds in the Thames Estuary would cause a “high risk” of bird strike.

Boris Johnson’s dreams of moving Heathrow airport to the Thames Estuary took a major setback today after an investigation found it would cause huge environmental, financial and safety risks.

A study for the Airports Commission found that a new estuary airport on the Hoo Peninsula in Kent, would cause “large scale direct habitat loss” to hundreds of thousands of migrating birds.

The cost of creating replacement habitats could exceed £2 billion and may not even be possible, the report found.

Even if replacement habitat could be found, planes using the airport would still be at a “high risk” of lethal bird strike.

In order to counter this risk, even larger areas of habitat would need to be destroyed to secure the airport.

Johnson was today urged to abandon the project.

“The Airport’s Commission has confirmed what a costly environmental disaster the mayor’s Thames Estuary Airport represents,” Green Party London Assembly member Darren Johnson said.

“The Mayor needs to abandon this ill-conceived project.”

The report also found huge regulatory hurdles to any potential estuary airport going ahead.

Under environmental regulations, backers of the airport would first need to prove that there were “imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)” for placing the airport in such an environmentally sensitive area.

Even if that could be proven, they would also need to demonstrate that all of the habitat displaced by the airport could be placed elsewhere.

The report found that while this was “technically possible,” it was highly uncertain, as such a large scale displacement had never been attempted before.

“It is technically possible but the scale of the required compensation is unprecedented to date and there is a high level of uncertainty given that the full requirement is yet to be understood,” they found.

They also found that any attempt to create new habitats nearby would leave the airport vulnerable to bird strike, leaving great uncertainty about any alternative sites being found.

The report found that the airport would also cause new flood risks and leave the infrastructure vulnerable to the effects of climate change and rising sea levels.

The findings are the latest blow to Johnson’s hopes of persuading the government of his case for a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary.

The mayor has spent more than six years and tens of millions of pounds in pushing the case for the airport.

Despite this, the Airports Commission chairman Howard Davies failed to include the plans on his shortlist of options for expanding airport capacity last year.

Davies did submit the plans for further investigation by the commission however, following heavy lobbying from City Hall.

The commission’s latest report is unlikely to persuade David Cameron of the case for an estuary airport.

Experts have put the final cost of a new airport in the Estuary at around £50 billion, far more than alternative schemes.

The prime minister is believed to favour either expanding existing airports at Heathrow or Gatwick instead, but has put off any decision until after the general election next year.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/07/08/airports-commission-sink-boris-johnson-s-estuary-airport-pla

 

.


 

Thames Estuary airport wildlife move ‘would cost £2bn’

8 July 2014 (BBC)

Experts predict it could cost up to £2bn to provide alternative habitats for wildlife if a proposed Thames Estuary airport is built.

An estuary airport on the Isle of Grain has been proposed by London Mayor Boris Johnson.

The report published by the Airports Commission said it would “radically and irreversibly” change the landscape, which is “noted for its remoteness”.

The report said impact studies lasting many years would be needed.

Aerial view of the Isle of Grain

Medway Council and Kent County Council opposed building an airport on the Isle of Grain

The environmental impacts study said an airport development was likely to result in “adverse effects” on international nature conservation sites, including the Thames Estuary Marshes special protection area.

The report said: “An airport would need to demonstrate that there are no feasible alternatives.

“A large area of compensation habitat creation would be required and this would be on a scale unprecedented for any single development in Europe.”

Based on other projects, the estimated cost would be between £70,0000 and £100,000 per hectare, the study found. This would result in a cost of between £149m and £2bn, if the airport was to be built.

Impression of the proposed Norman Foster Thames estuary airport
Areas on the east coast in Essex and Suffolk could be considered, but there was a “high level of uncertainty” they would be suitable.

“Further extensive studies would be needed over a large area and over many years,” the report said.

The proposals have faced opposition from councillors and MPs in Kent and Medway.

Rehman Chishti, Conservative MP for Gillingham and Rainham, said: “This new report confirms everything that we in Medway have been saying – the local authority, the residents – that the idea of having an airport in the estuary will have huge environmental implications for the South East and also for the area locally, and is unsustainable.”

Val Shawcross, the Labour spokeswoman in the London Assembly, said: “The idea of a Thames Estuary airport has long been dead in the water, but if a final nail in the coffin was needed, this is surely it.

“Boris [Johnson] has wasted millions of pounds on this vanity project.

“With this latest report in mind, he needs to accept that the evidence is now totally against him and that no more public money should be spent pursuing a Thames Estuary airport.”

‘Economic benefit’
The Green Party called for a reduction in air traffic rather than building a new airport.

Darren Johnson, a Green Party member on the London Assembly, said: “The Airport’s Commission has confirmed what a costly environmental disaster the mayor’s Thames Estuary airport represents.

“The mayor needs to abandon this ill-conceived project.”

But Daniel Moylan, the mayor of London’s chief advisor on aviation, said: “Few large scale infrastructure projects avoid significant costs for environmental considerations, but our estimate is that the cost of providing new habitat would be £500m, a quarter of that quoted by the Airports Commission.

“More importantly, their report confirms that every environmental objection can be answered, every obstacle can be overcome and there is nothing in the evidence published that should prevent the estuary option being shortlisted in September.

“Couple that with an estimated £7bn of economic benefit every year, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would result from moving Heathrow to the Thames Estuary, and the Airports Commission can have no alternative but to include the estuary option on its formal shortlist.”

The report is the first of four due to be published this week, looking into different aspects of the feasibility of a Thames Estuary airport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28217430
.
.


.

Airports Commission publishes “Environmental Impacts” report on Thames Estuary airport, for comment

The Airports Commission has undertaken to commission studies to assess whether a Thames Estuary airport should be short-listed, with the 3 schemes (Heathrow airport, Heathrow Hub, and Gatwick airport) to Phase 2 – for detailed consideration. These studies would be published in July, and accordingly, now the first study has been produced. It is on Environmental Impacts, and it was carried out by Jacobs Consultancy. The report is and is over 200 pages long, and appears to be thorough. It is clear that the extent of the environmental damage done by an airport would be huge, and the mitigation measures needed would be on a scale not seen before in Europe, if such mitigation was possible. It also stresses that, to allow this degree of environmental harm, “the Secretary of State for Transport would need to be certain that no alternative solutions existed, had considered the best scientific knowledge and taken into account the representations of Natural England and Environment Agency. If this test is passed it would need to be demonstrated that the proposals were needed for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public interest (IROPI).” The Commission invites comment on whether the report contains errors, or if anything has been omitted, by 8th August.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Battle of Balsall Common’ over plane noise, from Birmingham flight path trial, goes to Parliament

The Battle of Balsall Common – which has triggered waves of complaints of noise nuisance from planes taking off at Birmingham Airport – is to go to Parliament. Angry residents are raising a protest petition to be sent to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, to ask him to look at this trial, and call it in. People affected say their lives are being made a misery by trials launched in May in advance of new flight paths being made permanent.  This has happened because of the runway extension. People are deeply angry and anxious, because these flight paths are away from the NPR routes (Noise Preferential Routes), which everyone has known about for years. People have checked, in the past, to ensure they have not chosen to live near an NPR. Now, areas which nobody could have guessed would be overflow have planes overhead every few minutes. Campaigners took to the streets of Balsall Common last weekend to get signatures, in a bid to force a Government rethink of the new flight path. David Ellis, of the Balsall Common Action Group, said: ““We are told they are over 3,000 feet but that is not the point – the noise is the problem.” There will be a public meeting on July 16th on the problem.

.

A public meeting on the flight path problems will be held at Balsall Common’s Heart of England School at 7pm on July 16.

 

Battle of Balsall Common’ over plane noise goes to Parliament

Angry residents protesting to transport secretary about trials launched in May in advance of new flight paths

The Battle of Balsall Common – which has triggered waves of complaints of alleged noise nuisance from planes taking off at Birmingham Airport – is to go to Parliament.

Angry residents are raising a protest petition to be sent to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin.

The householders said their lives were being made a misery by trials launched in May in advance of new flight paths.

Campaigners took to the streets of Balsall Common last weekend in a bid to force a Government rethink following the recent opening of the airport’s runway extension.

David Ellis, of the Balsall Common Action Group, said: “There is a lot more noise nuisance and more planes since the trials started in May.

“We are told they are over 3,000 feet but that is not the point – the noise is the problem.

“The runway extension opened at the beginning of May and that is when it started.

“We want the Secretary of State to call it in and have another look at it.

“We will also have HS2 on the other side and, between high-speed rail and the flights, the village is scuppered.

“The petition will go to MP Caroline Spelman and then to the Secretary of State.”

The document calls on Parliament to “urgently review” the flight path plans.

It claimed the trial had failed to ensure aircraft followed the new flight path options accurately

An airport spokesman said: “A trial to test the impact of two potential flight paths has been in operation since May 1.

“It follows a full consultation period last year with the community on the two options.

“The trial is in order for the airport to understand the impact of the options, rather than theoretical modelling, before submitting its final findings to the Civil Aviation Authority.

“The new flight path, to the south of the airport, is required as a result of the runway extension, which is now open.

“It will deliver global connectivity and thousands of new jobs in the future for local people.

“The airport is aware of a petition circulating in the community and is recording and responding to all correspondence received by residents.”

A public meeting on the flight path problems will be held at Balsall Common’s Heart of England School at 7pm on July 16.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/battle-balsall-common-goes-parliament-7382210

.

.Birmingham option 5


.

Also

Balsall Common and nearby villages to petition Sec of State to get unpopular Birmingham flight path trial reviewed

3.7.2014

After the opening of the Birmingham airport runway extension on 1st May, the airport has been doing a “trial” of a new flight path. This will last for 6 months, till the end of October. The effect of this trial is to create a lot of aircraft noise over villages, Balsall Common in particular. Now the local group, the “Balsall Common Airport Action group” has organised a petition to the Secretary of State, asking that the proposed flight path changes should be reviewed, in view of the sharp increase in noise nuisance to the communities living at the southerly end of the extended runway and the failure of the trial to ensure aircraft follow the new flight path options accurately.  They are organising a protest on 5th July, and they will be going door to door, in the affected villages, gathering support and getting signatures for their petition. Local MP Caroline Spelman is backing the petition, as well as local politicians. People feel their complaints and constructive suggestions have been ignored, and that Paul Kehoe is wholly dismissive of residents’ views.  “It’s all about the money and business profits,” residents claim. 
.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=22142

 

.

Read more »

Up to 20,000 attended a damp but determined weekend at Notre Dame des Landes, against planned Nantes airport

Up to 20,000 or so people (estimates vary) gathered at Notre Dame des Landes over the weekend of 5th and 6th July, from across France, to support the campaign against the planned airport, and show their solidarity. Though dampened by almost continuous rain on the first day, spirits were not dimmed, and some 50 talks and debates went on – under canvas. There were also concerts by popular French singers, as well as stalls and activities for all ages. Some of those taking part in the weekend are opposing other Large Unnecessary Imposed Projects (Les Grands Projets Inutiles Imposés) across France, with a sincere desire to stop mega-projects that do great environmental harm, for dubious economic benefit. Work on the airport project has been frozen since 2012, largely due to legal obstructions. The last large protest by the Nantes opponents, organised by ACIPA, was on 22 February 2014, attended by between 20 000 and 50 000 people in streets of Nantes, which was severely policed, and from which there were injuries and some public damage.This weekend’s event was peaceful, and once the sun came out, the sky was filled with protest kites.
.

 

 

Below are some articles about the Notre Dame des Landes gathering, on 5th and 6th July, in imperfect English (original articles in French).

Un festival de musique a été organisé à Notre Dame des Landes, le 5 juillet.

John Stewart, (Chair of AirportWatch and of HACAN at Heathrow) attended the gathering. His comment:

“They came  from all over France and beyond.  They came in the weather so wet it would put West Wales to shame.  They came in record number.  Perhaps 20,000 people  – or maybe more – came to the protest weekend at Nantes.
The long-running campaign against a new airport at Notre-Dames-des-Landes in West France has become cause célèbre in France.  The protesters have gained so much support, including, critically, from direct action activists, that it is difficult to see the authorities finding a way to build the airport even if they overcome the legal obstacles and get hold of the money.
More widely, it is yet more living proof of the opposition new airports or new runways generate.  Nowhere in Europe can the authorities be confident of getting expansion plans through.”

More news about the gathering at http://www.scoop.it/t/acipa/?tag=NDL2014

Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Debates and boots

6.7.2014

Thousands of opponents of the project … by joe-en

Thousands of opponents of the proposed airport in Notre-Dame-des-Landes (44) flocked this Saturday, on the site to assist in the rain at large summer gathering of the movement and call for the abandonment of the project disputed transfer from Nantes-Atlantique Airport.

> Back to 15 dates in a controversial [Interactive Timeline] project
From all over France or other European countries, opponents flocked around the stands and marquees debates, but also on narrow roads near the site, which bouchonnaient as a day of going on holiday. In the late afternoon, between 7,000 and 8,000 people were indeed on the spot according to the organizers, more than 4,000 according to police, just before the concert headliners of the first day of the rally, Miossec, Sanseverino and Pigalle . Duflot and Bové support”In Brussels, we also have problems with the aircraft, it touches all people who are in this movement,” says Juliette, a young woman from Belgium with two friends, all three covered with long ponchos rain.

“We are farmers, for us it is important to defend the land to feed the people,” says Réjane a fifties activist first time came Loire-Atlantique.

“It should not be, because the development of air transport is a dead end, Airport Bouguenais (Nantes-Atlantique, Ed) works very well, a simple financial logic shows that the project of Notre-Dame-des- Landes is an aberration, “said Thierry, who came from Loire-Atlantique too.

Surprise guest, former Minister of Housing environmentalist Cécile Duflot arrived mid afternoon, at ease among his friends struggle. “We need to kind of pressure that we posed to the people who live and work here and who, for so many years, living with a sword of Damocles over the head. It has to stop now, “said MP EELV.

Not far from her, José Bové MEP EELV, said that “we are at a turning point in the struggle of Notre-Dame-des-Landes. It is clear that today the state is beginning to understand that this project will not succeed. ” Optimism tempered in the wet fields of Bellevue farm, north of the “Area of deferred development” or Zad project, now 18 months since the heart of the peasant resistance, debates succeed in capitals.

Opponents farm Thousand Cows in the Somme, the “No-Tav” (opponents of the Lyon-Turin railway line), through defenders AMAP (Association for the maintenance of peasant agriculture) or even opponents denouncing police violence use launchers soft ball all currents meet.

Artists also came to militants. “I am a kind of citizen who wants to ecology and who want a friendly environment, I have no desire there is an airport here,” says Sanseverino, making the balance of his concert in rain.

Optimism prevails, since the announcement this winter by the Government that the work will not begin until the end of legal proceedings. But Julien Durand, spokesman for the ACIPA, the main association of opponents, “as we will not have an official signature of the government adopting the declaration of public utility, the project can always go back.”

http://www.letelegramme.fr/bretagne/n-d-des-landes-debats-et-des-bottes-06-07-2014-10246099.php

.

In April, the European Commission opened infringement procedure against France, which is accused of failing to conduct an environmental assessment of the controversial airport project.


 

Notre-Dame-des-Landes. 22,000 participants in summer gathering

The largest gathering ends tonight music. Since Saturday it has united some 22,000 people, according to the organizers.

The largest gathering of solidarity and music at Notre-Dame-des-Landes  came to an end on Sunday 6th July.

The 14th large anti-airport gathering started on Saturday and brought together 22,000 participants,according to organizers. The authorities say 12,000 people.

At the  rally there were also many debates and education sessions, with fifty meetings and forums.

This gathering also attracted opponents fight against other “big useless projects” (Les Grands Projets Inutiles Imposés) such as the project Lyon-Turin rail link.

http://www.ouest-france.fr/node/2678620   for more in French and a video clip.

.


 

.

Notre-Dame-des-Landes: new opponents rally at the airport

The Point.fr

5.7.2014

On the occasion of their big summer rally, thousands of opponents of the airport project can be found on the site on Saturday.

Photo illustration.
Photo illustration. © Jean-Sébastien Evard / AFP

 

Thousands of opponents of the proposed airport in Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique) Saturday began pouring on the site at the time of their great summer, rain rally to demand the abandonment of the disputed transfer from Nantes Atlantique Airport project.

The first debate, for example on the “civil disobedience”, began in mid-day under large tents set up in the fields around the Bellevue farm, became the center of peasant protest on the site for the airport, was a journalist of the AFP .

The promise  in the afternoon of the first day of the rally, of concerts by Miossec , Sanseverino or Pigalle promised to draw a lot of people – despite the rain. Sanseverino was already mid-day balance of his concert on the main stage at the bottom of a large banner which proclaims on yellow background, “Abandonment is now.” (L’Abandon. C’est Maintenant).

Set up all around the arena were stalls of various militant anti-capitalist and anti-globalization struggles, as opposed to the “farm thousand cows in the Somme, or No-Tav (not TGV Lyon-Turin), representing their own struggles.  Parties and opposition political groups opposed to the draft Notre Dame-des-Landes airport, such as EELV or the Left Party are also represented.

“The project can always come back”

The construction of the Notre-Dame-des-Landes Airport by the company,Vinci  which should have been completed in 2017, has been frozen since 2012 due to strong opposition both on the ground, and due to legal issues and political plans.

The government announced on February 28, through Jean-Marc Ayrault, who was then Prime Minister, that the work of the airport was expected to start  the end of legal proceedings.

“We are here to show our determination, as long as we do not have an official signature of the government adopting the declaration of public utility, the project can always come back,” said Julien Durand, the spokesman for ACIPA, main opposition group and organizer of the rally,speaking to AFP (Associated French Press).

http://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/notre-dame-des-landes-nouveau-rassemblement-des-opposants-a-l-aeroport-05-07-2014-1843649_1927.php

.


.

Notre-Dame-des-Landes : des milliers de personnes pour dire non à l’aéroport

5.7.2014Des milliers de personnes sont attendues ce week-end sur le site contesté du futur aéroport nantais à Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique). Parmi eux, des élus, dont l'écologiste Cécile Duflot (à gauche).

Des milliers de personnes sont attendues ce week-end sur le site contesté du futur aéroport nantais à Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique). Parmi eux, des élus, dont l’écologiste Cécile Duflot (à gauche). 

Les opposants à Notre-Dame-des-Landes (Loire-Atlantique) ne désarment pas. Ce samedi, plusieurs milliers de personnes, qui réclament l’abandon du projet de transfert de l’aéroport Nantes Atlantique, ont répondu à l’appel des organisateurs du festival «L’abandon c’est maintenant !» organisé par les opposants au projet.

Pour ce grand rassemblement qui va durer tout le week-end, 30 000 personnes sont attendues entre samedi et dimanche, sur le site contesté du futur aéroport. <btn_noimpr>

En fin d’après-midi, en dépit de la pluie, quelque 7 à 8 000 personnes étaient arrivées sur place selon les organisateurs, plus de 4 000 selon la police, juste avant les concerts des têtes d’affiche de ce premier jour du rassemblement,  et Pigalle.


Cécile Duflot by surprise guest

Opposing the project are politicians of the party, as MEP José Bové EELV. “We are at a turning point in the struggle of Notre-Dame-des-Landes: it is clear that today the state is beginning to understand that this project will not succeed,” he says. The former Minister Cécile Duflot arrived in the middle of the afternoon. “We need to stop the kind of pressure that puts on people who live and work here and who for so many years have been living with the sword of Damocles over their heads; it has to stop now, “says a member of EELV (Europe Ecology Les Verts).

See picture on Twitter

“We are here to show our determination,”

In booths set up all around the capitals of various militant anti-capitalist and anti-globalization struggles, as opposed to “the farm thousand cows” in the Somme, or No-Tav (not TGV Lyon-Turin), present their struggle. Artists also came to militants. “I’m kind of a citizen who wants to ecology and who want a friendly environment, I have no desire there is an airport here,” says Sanseverino by balance of his concert in the rain. “We are here to show our determination,” said Julien Durand, a spokesman for the ACIPA, main opposition group and organizer of the rally.

Last year, at the height of the summer rally, held on 3 and 4 August, between 9000 and 25000 people attended the event, according to the respective numbers of the organizers and the prefecture of Loire Atlantic.

Works on standby since 2012

According to the original schedule, the work of the airport tarmac, the concession was awarded to Vinci group, have been started in spring 2014 and the airport should be opened in 2017. But with strong opposition both on the ground that the legal and political, construction has been frozen since 2012. latest episode mark of protest, the demonstration of 22 February 2014 which was attended by between 20 000 and 50 000 people opposed to the project in streets of Nantes. This event was punctuated by intense clashes between anti-capitalist activists with radical forces. Dozens of people were injured on the side of police and three protesters have lost the use of one eye . The damage had been estimated at one million euros. In the aftermath, the government announced on February 28, by the voice of Jean-Marc Ayrault, then Prime Minister, that the work expect the end of legal proceedings initiated to start .

.
.

.

A Notre-Dame-des-Landes, la mobilisation reste intacte et la décision incertaine

LE MONDE
7.7.2014
Par Rémi BarrouxUn festival de musique a été organisé à Notre Dame des Landes, le 5 juillet.
Se fera-t-il, ne se fera-t-il pas ? La question restait entière pour la grande majorité des participants au rassemblement à Notre-Dame-des-Landes contre le projet d’aéroport qui doit être construit à une vingtaine kilomètres au nord de Nantes.Samedi 5 et dimanche 6 juillet, des milliers d’opposants – plus d’une dizaine de milliers selon les organisateurs, moitié moins selon la police – à ce projet porté par le gouvernement, la région Pays de la Loire et la municipalité nantaise se sont retrouvées pour dire non à la plate-forme aéroportuaire, dont Aéroports du Grand Ouest (AGO), filiale de Vinci, doit assurer la construction et la gestion.Deux jours de concerts (avec notamment Miossec, Sanseverino, Pigalle…) et de déclarations contre l’aéroport, mais aussi contre la future ligne ferroviaire Lyon-Turin et d’autres infrastructures jugées « inutiles et coûteuses ». Dans la foule militante, des écologistes, des anticapitalistes, des agriculteurs, des opposants de la première heure au projet vieux de quarante ans et une ancienne ministre du gouvernement de Jean-Marc Ayrault, ardent défenseur de la construction de l’aéroport : Cécile Duflot.
…….
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/07/07/a-notre-dame-des-landes-la-mobilisation-reste-intacte-et-la-decision-incertaine_4452310_3224.html
.

.

Notre-Dame-des-Landes anti-system Zadistes invite themselves into the debate

6.7.2014

Some anti-system zadistes invited themselve into the meeting of political anti-airports which began there half an hour earlier, in under the big tent, because of the rain.

  “Democracy is the shit”, “Stop all work”, they regularly interrupted speakers and wanted toget their points across though  organizers obviously did not want to give them the floor.

One of them has even asked to leave the tent. Which they did not do.

For several months, relations have been strained between historical opponents of the airport,  and some of zadistes who are occupying part of the land.

http://www.presseocean.fr/actualite/notre-dame-des-landes-les-zadistes-anti-systeme-sinvitent-au-debat-06-07-2014-115378

.,

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Improving its passenger service would undercut Heathrow’s case for a 3rd runway

 In much the same way as landowners, especially in the Green Belt, tend to try to let their land get into such bad condition that planners allow planning permission on it, so it is with Heathrow. A comment piece by Philip Stephens, an associate editor of the Financial Times, reflects how Heathrow has a vested interest in managing to make the service they provide inadequate. The more passengers are inconvenienced – and told it is because the airport is so full – the stronger Heathrow hopes its case becomes to be allowed to expand. Philip says: “Absolute genius…….[Heathrow wants passengers to believe that] … If the government gave the go-ahead for expansion – specifically a 3rd runway – all would be well. Try that again: the only way to improve the dismal lot of passengers is guarantee Heathrow still higher profits. As I said, brilliant!” And “Heathrow dominates London’s air traffic and the two companies [Heathrow and BA] have a quasi-monopoly. They are extracting large rents. This is how monopolists behave, the more so when overseen by a weak regulator. Most importantly, a half-decent level of passenger service would be counter-productive because it would undercut the case for that 3rd runway.”
.

 

“How Heathrow makes money out of misery”

[Extracts from a longer article]

Genius. Absolute genius. Stranded again at London’s Heathrow airport, I suddenly grasped the power of public relations. Heathrow may be one of the world’s worst as well as busiest airports, but its operator Heathrow Airport Holdings and lead airline British Airways have unearthed the philosopher’s stone. They have turned their manifest failings into a potentially golden asset.

………

It was the half-apology offered by a hapless employee that revealed the vaulting bravado of airport operator and airline. Yes, the baggage system was in meltdown and, yes, flight delays were nowadays the norm. The two companies, though, were blameless. The problem was that Heathrow was overcrowded. If the government gave the go-ahead for expansion – specifically a third runway – all would be well. Try that again: the only way to improve the dismal lot of passengers is guarantee Heathrow still higher profits. As I said, brilliant!

…..

The economic case for a so-called mega-hub is undermined by HAH’s own figures and by advances in aviation technology. Heathrow admits that less than a third of its customers are the business travellers said to be vital to the regional economy. The rest are tourists, many of whom could quite happily travel from one of London’s three other airports. Transfer passengers account for less than 40 per cent of Heathrow’s traffic. They make money for HAH, but London’s gain is minimal. A new generation of fuel-efficient, sub-jumbo aircraft anyway heralds a shift towards more point-to-point journeys, undercutting the case for big hubs.

……

Maybe common sense will eventually prevail. Expansion of Heathrow would be madness. On the other hand, here is a sobering thought for the millions of passengers caught up in the traditional summer chaos at Heathrow: the more miserable your experience, the more likely those responsible will win a promise of still higher profits”

 

Full article at

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32e6f4fe-038c-11e4-817f-00144feab7de.html

.

.

.


 

.

Some comments from AirportWatch members:

Gatwick too uses the argument that increasing capacity would reduce delays. But the delays are not due to lack of capacity – they are due to scheduling more flights than the capacity can cope with – ie greed. There is no reason to believe that an increase in capacity would bring reduced greed. And the longer that passengers are kept in the airport the more money they spend there rather than on the high street.

In fact an airport will gain maximum profits when it is full – it only needs enough slack so that should routine variations in flight times etc do not cause it to back up so badly that it damages its reputation (so passengers and airlines go elsewhere) or so that it has to pay so much compensation that it would be cheaper to have less average custom. It is clear that the level at which this occurs is over 95% full – hence more capacity means (with a brief lag) MORE congestion.

Colin Matthew said, twice in my hearing, that he would like Heathrow to operate at about 97% capacity. That makes the best profit. It is always amazing to me how the airport makes out that this state of congestion is some sort of misfortune, visited upon it by some outside power – rather than entirely its own choice of operating mode. Let’s be clear: the degree to which Heathrow is “full” is completely its own choosing, and it is how it likes things to be.

.

.

.

 

 

– 

Read more »

Flight path changes could create nationwide protests due to the scale of the areas affected

Writing in a blog, in response to the huge anger and upset there has been around Gatwick in response to the flight path trial over Warnham and nearby villages (called the ADNID trial, in the jargon), John Stewart anticipates that flightpath trials are going to be a real headache for the industry for years to come.  He says “flightpath” will be the ‘F’ word that will be on everybody’s lips over the next few years.  The big changes to flightpaths which are expected over the next 5 – 6 years could trigger protests on a scale that could exceed the opposition to any proposed new runway.  In their scope, they could be more like the ‘anti-roads’ protests of the 1990s. The aviation industry is currently undertaking the most far-reaching changes to airspace across the UK for 60 years, due to the EU scheme, SESAR.  It is changes to the Heathrow flight paths that are making the industry particularly nervous.  That’s the reason why flightpaths at Gatwick and London City are being looked at first – and why Heathrow is very tentatively experimenting with new take-off techniques. “What will worry Heathrow in particular is that the consultation on its flight path changes, expected around 2016/17, could coincide with the decision of the next Government as to whether or not to back a 3rd runway.”

.

 

Flight path changes could create nationwide protests

4.7.2014

Blog by John Stewart

It will be the ‘F’ word that will be on everybody’s lips over the next few years.  ‘Flightpaths’.  The big changes to flight paths which are expected over the next five or six years could trigger protests on a scale that could exceed the opposition to any proposed new runway.  In their scope, they could be more like the ‘anti-roads’ protests of the 1990s.

The aviation industry is undertaking the most far-reaching changes to airspace across the UK for 60 years.  The driver behind it is something called SESAR.  It is an EU-scheme to make flight paths across Europe more efficient.  The industry would like simpler, more concentrated approaches and departures to increase capacity and reduce CO2 emissions.

Add in the fact that that the technology now exists for aircraft to be guided much more precisely and there is the potential for significant changes to flight paths.

However, the industry knows changes to flight paths can be toxic.  Look at the extent of the protests, and the degree of upset and anger that the current Gatwick trials have generated from villages that never expected to be overflown and from places which have seen a big increase in flights.

But it is changes to the Heathrow flight paths that are making the industry particularly nervous.  It is the reason why Gatwick and London City are being looked at first and why Heathrow is very tentatively experimenting with new take-off techniques.

What will worry Heathrow in particular is that the consultation on its flight path changes, expected around 2016/17, could coincide with the decision of the next Government as to whether or not to back a third runway.

However, the flight path issue will not be confined to London and the South East, though it there that the greatest pressure for change is coming from.  It potentially affects the whole country.  And this is why the protest could go nationwide.  It is quite possible to envisage a national network of the newly-overflown or badly-affected emerging containing lots of angry local residents.

The industry will try to forestall or minimize such protests by talking up the “winners” from any proposed changes.  And there will be winners.  Some areas will get less or no noise if the flights become more concentrated.  But I suspect this will off-set by the raw anger of those who find themselves living in the ‘noise ghettos’, particularly if they are significantly overflown for the first time.

The industry is looking to introduce measures to alleviate the pain of those who will be in the noise ghettos.  It is a key reason why they are looking at respite periods, steeper descent and take-off approaches and other operational measures.

The jury is very much out as to whether the industry will be able to do enough to pacify the noise ghettos.  If not the ghettos, like ghettos around the world, are likely to explode.  Just look at what has happened in Frankfurt when the flight paths were re-jigged when the 4th runway was built.  Nearly three years after is opened in 2011, thousands of people still occupy the terminal every Monday night in protest against the new flight paths.

A new runway will create protest.  But, unless it follows the pattern of the Heathrow 3rdrunway last time round and becomes an iconic environmental struggle, it will be confined to one area.  The flight path changes, by contrast, have the potential to generate nationwide protest.

.

.


 

.

For more about the flight path trial at Gatwick see

.

Villages up in arms as new Gatwick “ADNID” flight path shatters their peace and quiet

9.3.2014

The Sunday Times has featured the story of the misery and upset being caused over villages in Sussex by a new trial flight path from Gatwick. The village of Warnham is particularly affected.  It is a quiet village, but now has planes taking off from Gatwick thundering overhead. Some of the affected residents are the mother-in-law of Boris Johnson, who said who say the noise is so loud that it sets off baby monitors and drowns out the sound of local church bells. Also Caroline Lucas, whose family owns the 215-acre Warnham Park, with a large herd of red deer, said: “How long will future generations stay here? That’s the question you have to ask.”  The 6 month  trial, of which there was no notice given to local residents, is of a new departure route for planes mainly bound for southern Europe, which are now turning south earlier than they normally do.  The airport says the trial is to find out if a new aircraft navigation system will allow air traffic controllers to reduce the interval between flights taking off from two minutes to one, potentially allowing more flights to take off at peak times.  ie. make Gatwick even busier than now.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=20366

.

and

.

New branches of CAGNE form in Kent and East Sussex, joining the original in West Sussex

30.6.2014

The threat of a 2nd Gatwick runway, and the “trials” of new flight paths by Gatwick airport, has caused considerable upset in areas across southern Surrey, West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent.  The flight path routed over the Warnham area (Warnham, Rusper, Kingsfold, Winterfold, Rowhook, Slinfold and North Horsham) set in motion the formation of CAGNE – Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions – to fight against the unwelcome noise intrusion into the lives of thousands.  CAGNE has now grown, as more and more people upset by the flight paths – and the threat of more – join forces.  There are now two other CAGNE groups, working in East Sussex and in Kent, as well as the original CAGNE in Warnham, West Sussex. A group of residents, formerly the Bidborough Environmental Action Group, are becoming CAGNE East opposing planes, flying day and night – an aircraft “superhighway” – over historic areas of the High Weald ANOB, most of Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, Bidborough, Rusthall, Penshurst, Chiddingstone and Hever. CAGNE East strongly supports the High Weald Parish Councils HWPCAAG initiative, opposing Gatwick’s bid for a 2nd runway. 

 .

New campaign group – CAGNE – formed to protest against Gatwick Airport noise

31.3.2014

A new campaign group has formed in the Gatwick area, protesting against aircraft noise. Gatwick airport has been attempting to get good PR by claiming to do more than other airports to manage its aircraft noise.  However, infuriated residents living under a newly created departures flight path have formed the new group, called Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE).  It already has more than 300 frustrated members across Sussex, who are particularly angry at new flightpaths, of which the airport deliberately gave no prior notice. People at the villages of Rusper and Warnham, west of Crawley – which used to be quiet – have been horrified to find themselves subjected to relentless aircraft noise. Sally Pavey, a CAGNE member, said: “This is bringing misery to thousands of people and destroying the tranquility of parts of Sussex. It is wrong that all we can do is telephone the answer phone at Gatwick Airport to complain. ….we do not know if each complaint will be logged separately or if our address is only logged once.”  CAGNE has launched an online petition  calling on the DfT to stop the new flightpaths. The usual blandishment from the airport was that they “continue to take a responsible approach to noise reduction and mitigation.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=20704

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Huge gathering at Notre Dame des Landes – 20,000 + expected – this weekend against new Nantes airport

A huge gathering is taking place this weekend, at Notre Dame des Landes, in western France, against the planned airport at Nantes. This airport has been proposed for years, to replace the existing Nantes airport. It has been bitterly and fiercely opposed, not only by those whose land and farms will be expropriated by the plans, and other local people who do not want their area and their countryside destroyed. It is also opposed by thousands of people from across France. This weekend is now becoming a regular annual protest, each summer. Between 20,000 and 30,000 people are expected for a huge festival, with music, poetry, speeches, fun and food sharing. Caravans of supporters have been making their way to Notre Dame des Landes, on foot and bike (as well as by car) for several weeks, some walking huge distances. The airport planning is bogged down in legal challenges and legal details. Though work was expected to start this spring, nothing has happened. This airport project is one of a number of Grands Projets Inutiles Imposés which are being fought not only in France, but in other European countries.
.

 

Nantes protest arrivals

The festive weekend and activist began a march with participants from all over France

On foot, by bike or car, they came from all over France. Opposed to the waste of land and what they call unnecessary and imposed major projects, these activists converged on Friday by late afternoon, at Notre-Dame-des-Landes.

The retired farmer Michel Tarin, a figurehead of the anti-airport movement, led a three-kilometer walk in the bocage. As farmers of Larzac did in 1978, participants were provided with walking sticks, and these resonated rhythmically as people walked down the small roads towards the gathering..

All weekend takes place at Notre-Dame-des-Landes activist and festive gathering around the slogan “abandonment, it is now!” Supporters of anti-airport movement, Miossec, Sanseverino, or Pigalle must occur Saturday on the big stage. Sunday, we will hear Filoche and Heads Straight.The morning meeting will bring together twelve political stakeholders, including MEP José Bové.

Full program on http://www.acipa-ndl.fr

Nantes Irene 600 km


 

More stories, in French (or atrocious Google translation into English!) at  SccopIt! at     http://www.scoop.it/t/acipa/?tag=NDL2014

.

Nantes


 

Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport: thousands of opponents expected this weekend 

3.7.2014 (Metronews.France)

AIRPORT – Opponents organize their large traditional festive weekend Saturday and Sunday at the site of the future airport of Nantes. Program debates, concerts, political speeches.

Last year, the gathering drew 9-25 of 000 people.

Last year, the gathering drew 9-25 of 000.Photo: Jean-Sebastien Evrard / AFP

Read more »