Threat of planes flying into the Olympic cable car – Still unlikley

Friends of the Earth have managed to get the BBC to parrot out articles and news items on their latest ill informed panic; Olympic Cable Car at risk from London City Airport.

As a big supporter of the marvellously stupid cable car I was naturally concerned and spent a whole handful of minutes on the interweb. So we amble to the original cable car planning application lodged with Newham council and gather a route picture, then off to London City Airport for the information on the Public Safety Zone (PSZ). Combining these mighty pictures with literally minutes of photoshop gives you;

A map of the cable car route skilfully mixed with the Public Safety Zone

Is it too late to call this a mashup? What's the Web 2.0 Service Pack 1 phrase I should be using?

As you can see the Zone of Death (aka where the cable car route crosses the Public Safety Zone), which is where the cable cars will be ‘at risk from City Airport planes’ is a tiny corner squeezed into the far end. Ohh and also includes the A1011 and the A1020 roads, but strangely they aren’t considered ‘at risk’ despite actually existing? Is it just that people don’t care if road users are killed when planes crash into them? While that may be true for Friends of the Earth I think this section of the Civil Aviation Authority site may be more relevant;

PSZ Reviews

Airport Status
Bournemouth Closed 30 September 2010 – Nil comments received
Newcastle Closed 23 August 2010 – Nil comments received
Bristol Closed 23 August 2010 – Nil comments received
London City Airport Open – closing date for representations has been extended to 14 March 2011 – see London City Airport Notification Document inc map9 and FAQs

So in fact that Public Safety Zone is the proposed expansion and still hasn’t been confirmed? And the current one in fact stops in the middle of the Royal Victoria Dock? And as the cable car has planning permission it’s now treated the same as any other existing development? And the new PSZ is based on traffic forecasts that assume London City Airport gets to increase it’s traffic levels, so in fact the burden is on the CAA and London City Airport to prove that the new traffic levels (and new PSZ) won’t endanger the cable car and not the other way round? Well that’s a relief.

While I can understand why Friends of the Earth would do this, they were the people who fought a judicial review against London City Airports attempts to expand so any mud will do, why is the BBC so lazy? This was 5 minutes work on the internet, that lovely graphic took most of the time, surely BBC journalists can use search engines, so why don’t they?

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Threat of planes flying into the Olympic cable car – Still unlikley”

  1. I love what you’ve done hear. What a complete waste of time if typing this Blog??
    I’m a supporter of the cable car but actually get what the problem is. An incident may never happen your right on that point. The main issue to raise is that the powers that be have not taken into consideration that the DFT say that you should not increase the amount of people in a PSZ. You should not if possible build any new structures within a PSZ. LB Newham, LB Greenwich and TFL did not want this issue so used older maps, but as you’ve shown here the cable car crosses London City Airports PSZ, even if it just tips it. As for making the dumb statement that there are roads in the PSZ. They where here before the PSZ crossed them so that allowed. Homes that are now covered by the PSZ are allowed as the PSZ did not cross them when they are built. No new buildings or structures should be built in a PSZ as you are increasing the amount of people in that PSZ. It’s all about the rules. The DFT and London City Airport put them in place to SAFE Guard people. But these councils are not taking this into account.
    So to end my rant. Get the story right more than trying to trivialize the situation. Planning safe guards are being broken even if an accident never happens.
    It’s like pulling teeth reading this tripe you’ve put out.

  2. Just to add:
    Here’s the link to London City Airports PSZ which will assist you in understanding what it’s all really about.

    http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/375/srg_asd_londoncityairportnotificationdoc.pdf

  3. Just seen you have it. My mistake.

  4. Did you actually read the bit where it said the ‘new’ PSZ isn’t actually in place yet and is still under consultation till later in the year?

    The reason everyone (bar FoE and yourself it seems) uses the ‘old’ maps is that they are the current accurate maps. You can’t process a planning application on the basis of what someone else may want to do in the future, it would be madness. You can only plan on the basis of what is there and what has planning permission, NOT what might be there but isn’t official.

    The cable car has planning permission, thus it got there first before the PSZ expansion and now has to be considered as an ‘existing development’. Thus the consultation on the proposed expansion to the PSZ has to adapt to fit the cable car not the other way around.

  5. I did actually read the whole paper. It seems you’ve been selective on what you’ve read.
    When any planning application is being taken where a PSZ is involved. The planning authority has to take into account any master plans that are in place. DFT say you should not build or increase the amount of people in a potential PSZ. It’s all what if’s.
    London City Airports master plan states that the airport will be able to handle 176,000 flights per year. This will incraese the PSZ’s size even larger than the one thats available right now. This was not taken into consideration when this planning application was looked at. I understand why the planning authorities did not want to look at this as it potentially would stop the cable car being built.
    We need another Thames river crossing badly in East London. But the 2 crossings that have been discussed this year crossed London City Airports PSZ. The Thames Gateway Bridge was never going to be built and I’m sorry to say that you may find that this Cable Car will be scrapped or they will just have to look at another solution.
    I’ll put my cards on the table. I’m against the expansion of London City Airport because it’s built and expanding in a heavily populated area and the air and noise pollution will increase. This is also another issue. London City Airport will hold back needed regeneration in East and South East London due to situations like this. Affecting positive needed regeneration “river crossings in East & SE London.
    The PSZ really needs to be looked at and safety aspects taken seriously.

  6. Some reading for you:

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/safety/circular012010/pdf/circular

    Read Section 15 & 18. It will explain better.

  7. You really, really should start reading things before posting them. You might stop posting things that prove my point if you did. To quote the DfT guidance;

    “The Secretary of State is not seeking the revocation or modification of
    an unimplemented planning permission during its lifetime. ”

    Planning permission for the cable car was applied for before the CAA published the new proposed PSZ.

    So;
    1. The law said they could use the smaller PSZ because that was the current one at the time (and still is the current one at the moment and will be until at least March).
    2. Even if they had wanted to use the possible, un-confirmed, subject to change ‘new’ one they couldn’t as it didn’t exist and hadn’t been published.
    3. Now they have the planning permission the DfT explicitly say the planning permission should not be revoked.

    I know this is the internet and no-one has ever convinced someone else they are wrong, but if your going to keep referring me to documents that prove my point I’m going to stop playing.

  8. This is obvious -= trhe application is consistent with existring pSZ policy. It is clear that the Council had regard to emrging policy and decided because of the very small incursion that this wasnt an issue hence the approval. This is clearly a bigger agenda here for opponents of city airport who are using this as a platform to further their anti-airport cause. Whether you agree with city airport or not, this cable car is a good scheme and people should not stop it happening by being mischievous – shame on you FOE – didnt you support as cable car in the PSZ east of city airport once ?

  9. this is a great scheme – I agree with John. What are FoE doing ? I was a member once but not any more.

  10. I’m astonished at the utter lack of common sense on this matter by the easily lead and utterly blind people that would want to allow a potentially dangerious crossing.

  11. Potentially dangerous? Really? Given that the PSZ methodology admits it over-estimates the risk (it uses the worldwide crash data set which includes all the insanely dangerous aircraft that aren’t allowed into Europe) you are letting your dislike of the airport over-ride your very tenuous grasp of common sense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: