Newham council to block London City Airport’s expansion plans

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• hedgecock says:

  2 Jul2 July 06:03

  Thank goodness. This was an appallingly tone deaf and disingenuous scheme that would have made the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on the flightpaths miserable.

  • Ian says:

    2 Jul2 July 06:25

    Many of whom probably moved there in the last 37 years and moved freely with knowledge of aircraft flying overhead.

    The same people who would have benefited from the improved public transport and community fund.

    Just a thought?

    • JDB says:

      2 Jul2 July 08:05

      They might have moved there many years ago based on the licence/hours in force then, but it was inevitable the owners would keep trying gradually to get more and more flights. It will be the same when Rachel changes Council Tax into a property tax as the higher rates are currently so low relatively to property value. The new tax will start at a relatively modest level and then keep increasing to more onerous levels in line with other countries.

      • Rich says:

        2 Jul2 July 08:44

        One of the more strange analogies I’ve read this morning. From airport operating hours to potential changes to council tax via a labour election victory.

        For my part, I often wonder how many people who object to airport expansion or their intensification of use personally take flights and might actually benefit from the changes. A large number I’d have thought.

        • No longer Entitled says:

          2 Jul2 July 08:53

          Really had to shoehorn that needless political reference in.

        • redlilly says:

          2 Jul2 July 20:08

          I don’t disagree with airport expansion at all, but on the flip side to your argument… if you look at the local Boroughs around LCY you will see that they are some of the most densely populated in the country, housing some of the poorest people. People who live in these areas can only dream of going to Southend, let alone Santorini.

      • John says:

        2 Jul2 July 11:37

        Good, property taxes should be as high as possible. Sadly a reduction in bad taxes (SDLT, IHT, VAT) to compensate is unlikely.

    • Ken says:

      2 Jul2 July 10:22

      The community fund that probably works out at about £1 a year per person.

      Buys you a sausage roll.

      • Will says:

        2 Jul2 July 12:09

        And that’s my main objection too.
        Commercially how much is in this for the airport/airlines each year indefinitely?

        We have a major problem with planning and licensing in this country (and perhaps the capitalist world) in so far as the externalities imposed on the wider community are not properly compensated for when development / licenses are granted.

        An annual % land value tax is the simplest solution as the tax varies depending on the present day “worth” of the land.

        The residents may have a more favourable view of the increased usage lowered their council tax bill for example or built a new hospital.

  • The Original David says:

    2 Jul2 July 08:35

    I don’t think a few extra flights per week is going to “make my life miserable”. I live on the flight paths for both LCY and LHR, and to be honest there’s more noise from buses, d*ckheads in loud cars and council kids on stolen Lime bikes than there is from planes going past. I reckon the “hundreds of thousands” on the flightpaths have stronger constitutions than you imagine.

    • MJB says:

      2 Jul2 July 08:47

      I agree with @The Original David. I too am on the flight paths for both LCY and LHR. D*ckheads in loud cars are way more of an irritance than the planes overhead.

      • Nick says:

        2 Jul2 July 14:20

        The point above about people living there does stand, given that the airport itself proudly proclaimed the weekly 24-hour shutdown for nearly all of that time. Yes they could always have changed their mind (as we’ve seen now), but it was reasonable to think they backed it given this is what they themselves said so clearly. Compare with Heathrow, etc., who have only ever reluctantly accepted limits and have fought against them at every opportunity.

• Ian says:

  2 Jul2 July 06:20

  This is a S73 application. This allows for an application to vary a condition on a previous planning decision.

  This is only a recommendation, the committee may not agree with the officer. They often agree, but no guarantee.

  Then the applicant can appeal to the inspectorate on the application. This may take up to a year for a decision. This is a fee application so would usually be done automatically if the applicant feels the local authority is wrong.

  Then if the applicant thinks that there has been an error of judgement by the inspectorate, they can appeal to the High Court.

  So this still has a long way to go and can be given approval at any point.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    2 Jul2 July 09:37

    You can only apply for a judicial review if you believe there is an error in law in the decision making process not because you don’t like the decision.

• Aria says:

  2 Jul2 July 06:32

  Ian overlooks the number of expansions City Airport has bulldozed through over the years. I live in Eltham with almost zero transport connections to the airport. It’s impossible to hear conversations in my garden when planes are flying overhead every few minutes at 2000 feet and under. And a lot of much needed housing developments have taken place on brownfield sites in the old docks over the years. Why make residents’ lives miserable unnecessarily

• G says:

  2 Jul2 July 07:06

  The tyranny of local councils strike again.

  The most overpaid bin collectors in the world.

• yorkieflyer says:

  2 Jul2 July 07:55

  Nimbyism at its worst, the interests of London and the wider country being stymied by a tin pot local council. As others, Jeremy Clarkson for example, have highlighted local councils severely hamper economic growth and job creation. In my view if you are claiming either their should at the very least be cheaper fast track appeals process or simply restrict or remove local councils planning powers

  • dougzz99 says:

    2 Jul2 July 10:01

    This is a site about getting flights and hotels for as little as possible, so I wouldn’t expect balanced remarks in regard airport expansion versus local interests. But citing Jeremy Clarkson!

    • yorkieflyer says:

      2 Jul2 July 10:06

      Like him or loathe him his experience of the planning process as highlighted in his farming program is very interesting

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    2 Jul2 July 10:48

    IIRC Clarkson didn’t apply for planning permission before doing what he did.

    Councils are loathe to approve retrospective applications except for the most minor issues.

    If he’d applied properly in the first place they may well have granted him planning permission possibly with conditions. But he didn’t so paid the price.

  • Mike Hunt says:

    2 Jul2 July 11:00

    Failure to support Jeremy Clarkson and his farm shop / restaurant is a classic example of a local council failing to support a local business that would employ local people

    • Rob says:

      2 Jul2 July 11:20

      Yet if your neighbour wanted to turn their house into a restaurant with the associated noise, smells, parking etc you probably wouldn’t be keen ……

      Cotswolds isn’t exactly a place of high unemployment either 🙂

    • Will says:

      2 Jul2 July 12:15

      Have you ever tried to get planning on an AONB?
      Much as I support local business I’m not sure that relaxing planning law because a celebrity with a TV show and cult following managed to get thousands of people turning up to a field is a good idea.

      Planning definitely needs reform, we need more development but Clarkson’s example is terrible.

      A better example is all the young people without wealthy parents or the millions of migrants who’ve come here over the last 20 years needing brand nee towns and cities built to accommodate them at prices which don’t include a massive land premium due to a lack of approval of development land.

• John says:

  2 Jul2 July 08:00

  What were the aircraft limitations going to be?
  As far as I’m aware there are only two types flying into City for the airlines (excluding private jets I mean) – Embraers, which make up the vast majority for Lufthansa, BA, KLM, and LOT… and Airbus A220’s for Swiss/Helvetica.
  Which one of the two was going to be restricted? And are both considered “quiet” so effectively this was a restriction of none?
  Personally, I can always tell when an Airbus is coming into land cause it seems to make a more high pitched squeal as the pilots modulate the throttle (and I live all the way over by Canning Town station!). Would be interesting if anyone else thought the same.
  Ps – I support Newham council on this. The consultations on rerouting the A13 slip road down a neighbourhood street, or turning Silvertown Way into a Blackwall Tunnel extension, were seemingly kept quiet and were wholly ineffective. Massive drop in the quality of life from all of the traffic. So, nice that someone has finally spoken for the people who live here.

  • Bagoly says:

    2 Jul2 July 11:04

    Good question about the types of ‘planes.
    Is it anything to do with private jets?
    My thought on reading the proposal summary was that a more reasonable offer would be to restrict all flights to quieter models, not just the ones in those few hours.

    • Richie says:

      2 Jul2 July 11:24

      Weren’t the Avro four engined planes pretty noisy?

  • Nick says:

    2 Jul2 July 14:25

    Dash 8s still go in as well, don’t they? Pretty sure at least LG send them.

  • Sean says:

    2 Jul2 July 15:03

    There are more than two type. There are the E190s, next gen E190E2 and soon E195E2, A220, ATR42/72 and Q400s on a regular basis. The restrictions would to allow for quieter E190E2 and A220.

• Jordan D says:

  2 Jul2 July 08:13

  Another ridiculous decision being pushed for by a ridiculous council. The whole of London suffers.

  That said City needs to get on and finish the building works they paused in 2020.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    2 Jul2 July 09:41

    That would be the same council that approved the expansion plans you want completing and was over ruled by the former Mayor (the dishonourable former member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip) whose decision was reversed by the current Mayor.

    • LittleNick says:

      2 Jul2 July 12:34

      So? Your point is? Politicians of all persuasions will make decisions on what suits them on the day without any forward strategic thought as what’s best for London/UK as a whole. UK Airport expansion should be taken out of the control of local councils

• Quinn says:

  2 Jul2 July 08:39

  Living in Newham closeby to the airport I believe the extension would be great for the locals struggling to find employment. Biggest issues is the noise but if the quiet planes are used than it’s less of a problem.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.