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.

• Guy Incognito says:

  2 Jul2 July 09:03

  Must have been a huge surprise to the people who bought houses on the flight path that there was a huge airport right there…

  I live on the Heathrow flight path and fully support the third runway because of the obvious benefits it would bring.

  Newham are no doubt more concerned with lining their coffers with LTNs and 20mph speed zones.

  • BA-Flyer says:

    2 Jul2 July 09:57

    Presumably you fully support abolishing the night flight restrictions at LHR, even if this interrupts your sleep every night? Afterall, you chose to live on the flight path.

    • Guy Incognito says:

      2 Jul2 July 11:04

      Yep, got no issue with it whatsoever. I’m living in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world. You’ll hear ambulances, fire engines, police etc at various times, plane noise is no big deal whatsoever. To moan about plane noise is absurd IMO.

    • Lady London says:

      2 Jul2 July 11:58

      Heathrow curfews were too frequently breached and there were very early (like 4.30am lumbering noisy aircraft most days of the week when I lived in Kew.

      There are 2 problems here
      1, the more you give an airport, the more it wants. Local residents’ wishes always end up overridden. They can well end up with far, far more disturbance than they could ever have bargained for, as airports keep asking for more.

      I well remember the promise by Heathrow that if they were just allowed to add Terminal 4, they would never ask for another one. Even JDB is old enough to remember that, though he might not admit this is what Heathrow said 🙂 .

      I think it was within about 2 years of Terminal 3 being open, and there Heathrow was, asking for Terminal 5.

      2. So far as I hear big problem generally, is that government overrides local refusal of planning applications.

      • Lady London says:

        2 Jul2 July 12:01

        *Terminal 4 being open

      • John says:

        2 Jul2 July 12:10

        I live in Kew and can’t hear a when the windows are closed, as Heathrow paid for my windows (before covid). The tube line is noisier

      • LittleNick says:

        2 Jul2 July 12:43

        There is an obvious solution to those that don’t line the noise, move, you don’t have to live there, it’s really that simple. The vast majority chose to live there under a flight path.
        Do people seriously expect an airport never to ask for more? They should know that if they move there
        Time to stop pandering to a loud vocal minority of nimbys and crack on with UK airport expansion. I would say residents deserve to be compensated well for expansion though

      • TGLoyalty says:

        2 Jul2 July 13:24

        Is T5 another one or just a replacement for T1 in their we will never ask for more than 4 🙂

        • Lady London says:

          2 Jul2 July 13:30

          Ah… I knew there was a reason somewhere.
          A bit stretched as an excuse though given there must have been well over 30 years time lapse since the opening of Terminal 5 before they demolished Terminal 1?

        • Lady London says:

          2 Jul2 July 13:33

          *Terminal 4. After which Heathrow whined to get Terminal 5, with Terminal 1 demolishment not seen till decades later

        • TGLoyalty says:

          2 Jul2 July 19:23

          T5 opened in 2008 and T1 closed in 2015 🙂

          so not quite 30 years lol

          In the grand scheme of huge projects it’s probably about right with the way the regulator acts.

  • martin says:

    2 Jul2 July 13:37

    In 2015, they started using RNAV – to quote the consulation,
    “This has the effect of reducing the overall area overflown, but it will increase the concentration of over-flights in some areas beneath the centreline of the given route.”
    We live in Leytonstone, right under the centreline of the westerly departure route – so get more of that noise than we used to, plus about a third of the westerly Heathrow arrivals too.

    So yes, we knew the airport was there when we moved here – but the noise profile has intensified since then, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want to limit further expansion.

• Qrfan says:

  2 Jul2 July 09:34

  I’m amazed there continues to be demand for London city when Heathrow is within 45 minutes of Canary wharf now. I really thought the end of the BA babybus to New York heralded the end. I do enjoy seeing my mate rerouted to Southend when the late flight back from Geneva misses curfew though!

  • lumma says:

    2 Jul2 July 09:47

    I live in Whitechapel and although Crossrail has made the journey from Heathrow much nicer than trundling through west London on the tube, I would still take a LCY flight if it was an option.

    Getting the DLR to Woolwich Arsenal then switching to the Elizabeth line has also massively improved getting to and from LCY, although I suspect most people don’t realise this.

    • Rob says:

      2 Jul2 July 09:55

      We live South Ken-way and its still pretty much equal for me to Heathrow or City if I’m on the tube.

    • Bagoly says:

      2 Jul2 July 11:10

      I hadn’t. Thank you for that idea.

  • dougzz99 says:

    2 Jul2 July 09:56

    If you can find a flight from LCY it’s just a much better experience. The entire airport functions in a way large airports simply can’t match. I’ll forgo 2 hours in a ‘lounge’ for spending that time at home. A BA E190 in economy is a wider seat with more legroom than any A320 series out of LHR, club or otherwise.

    • qrfan says:

      2 Jul2 July 12:18

      I only really regularly used LCY on a Thursday or Friday evening for ski weekends, but i have to say that certainly wasn’t my experience. Jam packed check-in area. Long lines for security with latecomers being ushered to the front. Over crowded gate areas. My benchmark at the time (as it would have been for many of my colleagues) was the First Wing at T5, and I’d take LHR every time. We did fly on a Saturday morning once and that was, admittedly, a pretty decent experience.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    2 Jul2 July 10:05

    So the ending of one flight a day ( which it was at the end) with a max of 32 passengers should result in the closure of the entire airport???

    And the airport had been open for 20 years before the BA1 service started.

    It’s a myth that LCY existed purely to serve Canary Wharf.

    But what about slots for all those LCY flights? LHR is essentially full.

  • Md11 says:

    2 Jul2 July 10:12

    Convenience of london city cant be understated especially for short hops to europe. You can be touchdown to on the dlr within 20mins. No long taxis to the runway or being stuck in holding patterns, waiting for gates

  • George K says:

    2 Jul2 July 12:56

    There is no contest between LCY and LHR. Even if we live closer to LHR, LCY wins every time. It’s not just getting to the airport (which, actually, takes less time to get to LCY) but what happens when you’re there. At LCY, once you’re through, you can be in the air 15 minutes later. On an inbound flight, my personal record is 4 minutes from doors open to the DLR. At LHR, you’re lucky if you’re out in 45 minutes.

    Long may LCY continue. The only shortfall of LCY is visibility. If it’s foggy, it shuts down.

  • Jack says:

    2 Jul2 July 22:14

    LCY is still much better connected than heathrow is and takes roughly the same time if less from central London . The airport functions very well where you can be out on the DLR within minutes of landing if HBO unlike heathrow . Heathrow is completely full whereas having a airport centrally based is a huge advantage to many people . You can be in the air within 20 mins of arriving at LCY

• Catalan says:

  2 Jul2 July 09:49

  Funny how some posters criticise Newham council for looking after it’s residents (describing it as “tinpot”) whilst conveniently forgetting that as mayor of London Boris Johnson blocked all expansion of LCY in 2015!

  • LittleNick says:

    2 Jul2 July 13:17

    Irrelevant, tinpot council and mayor then! It’s not about the colour of the rosette but the decision

• Ian says:

  2 Jul2 July 10:31

  This is the usual case of the thin edge of the wedge in terms of the initial planning application for the airport being a niche service with strictly limited numbers of flights etc. Then what happens? Surprise, surprise, greed takes over with a series of applications for “small” increases – one after the other. Good for Newham council.

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    2 Jul2 July 10:45

    Indeed.

    And this is apparently only the planning officers recommendation to the planning committee where elected councillors will take the decision. They can accept the recommendation or over rule it. They can approve the application but add in additional conditions.

    The Mayor of London could then call in the decision as could the Secretary of State and both could add in further conditions before approving it.

    What amazes me is people wanting councils to lose all their planning powers. Powers which have been granted by Parliament and Government guidance to enable councils to take decisions in their own localities.

  • Bagoly says:

    2 Jul2 July 11:09

    Indeed.
    The relaxation of the glide path restriction was probably the greatest breach of the original social contract.
    I see that initial routes were Plymouth, Paris, Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

• Peter says:

  2 Jul2 July 10:58

  I live in a new build near Southwark station, so quite some distance to city airport, and can hear every single plane in the mornings the route goes over here, with closed windows that is. It’s a great airport to use but not in any relation to all the disruption it causes to people.

  • Alex says:

    2 Jul2 July 12:35

    That must be a very low quality window! I lived in Canary Wharf for over 5 years, planes passed above our flat at relatively low altitude most of the days. Compared to all the other noises in cities, planes are not terribly loud. For some reason it is ok though to run party boats on the Thames.

• Matarredonda says:

  2 Jul2 July 11:03

  Ultimately Councils have little control pver developments because of all the appeals available to a developer, etc.
  Where extra jobs are mentioned the application is more often or not approved, not surprisingly.

• Richard S says:

  2 Jul2 July 11:56

  The airport could do a number of things to improve … domestic arrival is a mess.. ie wait for coach (particularly if another domestic flight has just arrived as there only apoears to be one coach!!) dumped at one door up stairs down stairs … perhaps the new plans will make it easier? And have cityflyer submitted an order for new aircraft??

  • Jack says:

    2 Jul2 July 22:08

    Cityflyer planes are not really in need of replacing anytime soon tbh . LCY is way more organized then LHR

• Ziggy says:

  2 Jul2 July 13:14

  The comments that amuse me most are the ones suggesting residents shouldn’t complain about LCY expansion because when they purchased their properties they knew they knew they were living near a flight path.

  What that conveniently overlooks is that those people may have been ok with the flight traffic as it was when they moved into the area, but may not be happy with the traffic and noise being allowed to increase significantly.

  It’s a bit like saying that if you choose to live near an A road, you shouldn’t complain when someone wants to turn that A road into a motorway.

  • rivo says:

    2 Jul2 July 18:54

    I also suspect that the majority of people commenting gave never been to North Woolwich, Silvertown or Custom House, whose houses were built when the docks were still active.

    My wife is born and bred North Woolwich. They were all promised the jobs when it was built, but got nothing, other than ger primary school knock down to make way for the private jet terminal.

    Progress eh.

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