Talk:Tulip (tower)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * TheTulip.png

Edit request
Hi,

My name is David Folley and I work for the Tulip project’s PR agency. I just wanted to provide some information for your consideration for this page concerning the below sentence in the objection section. The London City Airport's comment on the City of London's portal has been retracted.

Explanation: London City Airport commented on the City of London's public planning consultation portal that an assessment needed to be carried out on the impact of the development on air traffic control before construction. The National Air Traffic Control Organisation (NATS) stated in its response to the public consolation that ‘NATS has assessed the proposed development and is satisfied that no impact is anticipated from either the building itself, or the moving gondolas’.

Supporting references: Here is the planning application page on the City of London’s website where comments and letters can be found The specific NATS response letter can be found here London’s free newspaper City A.M. also reported this here

I hope this is helpful and clear. I will leave it to you to decide if this should be reflected in the text, but available if needed. Thank you very much Drfolley (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I am just sharing the above to the list of requested edits. Thank you for your consideration.

Drfolley (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 20-JUN-2019
Regards, Spintendo  09:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The request does not specify whether the proposed text is to be added or deleted.
 * 2) The provided references are not formatted according to the citation style currently used by the subject article. (See WP:CITEVAR.) Any proposed additions to the article will need to have references formatted using the style already in use with the article.
 * 3) One of the provided references' URL is non-functional.



Thank you for the feedback and apologies for not being specific on the request. I would suggest removing the sentence in question as explained below.

Information to be removed:

Explanation of issue: The information misreported, and corrected by some media, said that London City Airport opposed the proposal. Instead, what happened is that London City Airport commented on the City of London's public planning consultation portal that an assessment needed to be carried out on the impact of the development on air traffic control before construction. The National Air Traffic Control Organisation (NATS) then stated in its response that "NATS has assessed the proposed development and is satisfied that no impact is anticipated from either the building itself, or the moving gondolas". Such requests are quite common from relevant parties when it comes to building proposals. It was however misunderstood by some journalists. There was no opposition from the London City Airport. The sentence is not correct nor should it be in a section titled Opposition.

References supporting change: This information is available on the City of London’s website: https://www.planning2.cityoflondon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PI6RTDFHKOR00 London's daily newspaper City A.M. also reported this here (last paragraph) https://www.cityam.com/tulip-awaits-go-ahead-after-nod-city-planners/

Kind regards, Drfolley (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! . I have removed the mention entirely from the opposition section and inserted this clarification in the history section:

In November 2018, London City Airport officials insisted that National Air Traffic Services (NATS) be consulted regarding the impact rotating gondolas would have on radar systems; NATS responded that "it was satisfied that no impact from either the building or the moving gondolas is anticipated."


 * Please open a new request if this change is insufficient.  Orville1974 talk 14:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)