Archive for November, 2009

« Older Entries

Airport is our great asset

Monday, November 30th, 2009

I am indifferent to the expansion of Southend Airport, having read almost every word on the subject in the last few months.

I live a few miles southeast of the airport, and will not be directly affected by it.

I don’t know if I missed it, but I have never seen mentioned the large mail plane which crashed on to a garage in Eastwood Road, a building which by sheer coincidence I had recently decorated.

Only the pilot lost his life, tragically, as this happened in the small hours when most of the occupants were in bed. I recall only one other incident when a large aircraft stopped short of the railway line.

Safety at the airport has always been a priority and I hope all opinions will be listened to, as I’m sure it is a great asset to Southend.

T E Langley
Cumberland Avenue
Southend

Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | 2 Comments »

Leigh will change forever

Monday, November 30th, 2009

I am amazed so little attention has been drawn to the consequences for Leigh of turning Southend Airport into a regional hub for the Stobart Group.

Our councillors have not opened the debate up to the residents. They have arrogantly taken the bait of “jobs” and thrown everything else out.

Our town will change forever. Plans are afoot for an enormous increase in aircraft and as the need for better access becomes clear, so larger road networks will be needed.

This will mean a change in the character of Leigh.

The hi-tech jobs will stay where they are – outside Leigh, with commuting building even further.

Michael Baker
Marine Avenue
Leigh

Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

The Church and Eastwoodbury Lane

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

So, another week and another topic! If you have not already begun a letter-writing campaign to the officers of the Developmental Control Committee, this may be the topic that gets you started, because to some, it will be the most emotive of all.

In 2002, the CAAG (Church and Airport Action Group) campaign was successful in protecting St Laurence Church from demolition due to the aim to expand the airport and extend the Runway End Safety Area. This current application to extend the runway accepts that the church is still there, and it shows clearly on all the plans as an obstruction. The CAA has yet to venture its opinion on whether it will still be an ‘acceptable obstruction’, but anyone who lives near or passes by the church must wonder why the houses opposite the church have to be demolished, whilst the church is allowed to stay where it is! Perhaps they are hoping that the vibrations from aircraft, warming up their engines next door, or landing heavily mere yards away, will cause the old building to demolish itself, and save the airport having to do it.

So the church will become a very noisy place to worship, at least; it is not a redundant church, but a building of great antiquity, which is used throughout the week by a number of people for a variety of purposes. There is no question of stopping the aeroplanes from using the runway whilst services take place and no question of the parishioners moving somewhere else. The church has stood there for a thousand years, and it is believed to have been a centre of worship even before that. When the airport began as an aerodrome in wartime, the planes had a short take-off and were nowhere near the church at any time; the problem now is the size of the aircraft they want to put there will once again threaten the fabric of the building itself.

Now, supposing that you live to the east of the church and wish to attend services; there is at the moment a short distance to walk, but in the future they envisage, a walk of about a mile will get you to the church.

Which brings me to the last point; what right do these people have to shut off an ancient right of way? You will note that throughout the last few months, they have been using the word ‘diversion’ rather than closure of Eastwoodbury Lane. The village of Eastwood, which has been slowly eroded by Southend Borough Council for years, once stood all around the church, and there were thatched cottages in Eastwoodbury Lane until the second part of the Twentieth Century. One was pulled down because ‘ the doorway was too low’ ! The name itself is indicative of its purpose – it is the way you go in order to bury someone at the church.

So, sorry about the history lesson, much of which you may have known already, but if you have time this week, sbc-dcc@saen.org.uk is the place to send your letters. One letter will reach all 17 of the committee who will decide on the future of the airport. Mine goes off later this evening…

Regards,

Kiti

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Computer glitch leaves Council with Egg on Face

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

The planning application submitted by the Stobart Group to extend the runway at Southend Airport originally had a deadline of 12th November for objections. However, this was extended to 20th November. In recent days, the deadline published on the Council’s website changed again, firstly to 1st December and now to 10th.

Dean Hermitage, the Planning Officer in charge of this particular project, was completely unaware of the changes and expressed some exasperation that the Council’s computer system seems to change the deadline of its own volition. However, he commented, “Since our website now displays the 10th December deadline, we will obviously have to honour that. It does make it a bit difficult taking all those comments into account in time for the Development Control Committee of 20th January.

“However, we will accept comments right up to the DCC Committee meeting.”

Kiti Theobald, chairman of Stop Airport Extension Now, responded: “One wonders how much attention will be given to comments submitted ‘right up to’ 20th January if the Council are worried that 10th December is cutting it fine.

“We encourage people to get their objections in before the 10th December deadline, but they should also write to the Government Office for the East of England asking for the application to be called in for a Public Inquiry. Details are available on our website at http://saen.org.uk/”

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

SAEN was formed to campaign against the runway extension at Southend Airport. The group is not opposed to the Airport itself, which has co-existed with the residents of Southend for many years. SAEN is against the runway extension, which would lead to a massive increase in flights and destroy the lives of the people living, working or going to school anywhere near the flightpath.

Website: http://saen.org.uk/

Tags: ,
Posted in Planning Application, Press Releases | No Comments »

Who said democracy was dead!

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

FIRST Scenario: At the recent Scottish by-election there was the lowest ever recorded voter turn-out of 33 per cent. Only 17 per cent of the 33 per cent actually voted in Labour’s favour, nevertheless the Labour Party heralded this a ‘triumph’ a mandate to represent that constituency.

No mention of voter apathy here!

Second Scenario: Rochford District Council (and Southend Borough Council) were recently ORDERED, by a Freedom of Information Officer, to release the results of the JAAP Consultation Document.

The JAAP results showed a 77.1 per cent majority of responses OBJECTED to the airport expansion & runway extension.

So what did our ‘democratically’ elected councillors do?

They conspired to withhold those results from the public domain.

Why? Because the results were NOT the results they wanted. It was obvious their preferred option was NOT the vast majority of the JAAP respondents’ preferred option.

Nevertheless, they still choose to ignore these results in pursuance of their ‘preferred option’ – maximum growth and the expansion of Southend Airport anyway.

Our elected representatives interpret and manipulate the democratic process to suit themselves. Who said democracy is dead?

Mrs D Davey
Address supplied

Posted in Letters, Media, Yellow Advertiser | No Comments »

Why the planning application needs calling in

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

Your ref: SW2411
Our ref: 20091124-DAMP

24 November, 2009

David Amess MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear David,

Thank you for forwarding me Paul Clark’s response in your letter of 18th November.

We are aware that the Secretary of State is generally reluctant to call planning applications in but believe that in this case it is desirable. The planning application to extend the runway does indeed involve issues beyond local importance in addition to meeting a number of the other criteria for call-in:

  • conflict with national policies on important matters
    The expansion of Southend Airport to 2mppa is not supported by the Air Transport White Paper of 2003. The ATWP envisages a role for the airport supporting the needs of local businesses. No runway extension would be required for this.
    The expansion of any airport conflicts with the Climate Change Act as it would result in an increase in CO2 emissions. The extension of the runway at Southend Airport enables this. As you will be aware, the Government’s policy on aviation is entirely at odds with the overriding requirement to save the planet from devastating global warming.
  • could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality
    Clearly, climatic impacts would satisfy this. However, the inadequacy of the road infrastructure to cope with an increase in traffic as a result of the airport expansion would also have effects beyond the immediate locality. The airport expects a 5% increase in traffic on roads that are already at or near capacity.
  • give rise to substantial regional or national controversy
    As you will be aware from your mailbag, this topic is very controversial locally. There is also substantial concern nationally about airport expansion.
  • raise significant architectural and urban design issues
    Southend is the fifth most densely populated area in the UK outside London. There are about 20,000 houses and ten schools under or near enough to the flight path to be affected by the increase in noise the airport expansion would cause. The Council themselves acknowledge that the airport is not in the right place, so logically, expansion would be inappropriate for the area.
  • involve the interests of national security or of foreign governments
    Airports are quite obviously intrinsically linked with national security.

It should be noted that any one of the reasons in bold is sufficient justification for call-in.

I would now like to turn to the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). Mr Clark should be made aware of the overwhelming opposition shown in both phases of JAAP consultation conducted so far.

The Councils noted in their report on the first phase of consultation that “Despite some support, the majority of respondents were opposed to Scenario 3. There was significant opposition to Scenario 3, particularly, but not exclusively, from members of the public.” One would expect, particularly given that they go on to spell out a number of those objections, that the second phase of consultation would not then select Scenario 3 as the Preferred Option that the Councils wished to pursue and yet they did. The full document is available at:

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/JAAP_%20issues_and_options_summary_consultation_response.pdf

Unfortunately, there is at the present time no similar document for phase 2 of consultation, but we know from the ‘Brief Summary of Representations’ at:

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/JAAP_representations_summary.pdf

that over three quarters of respondents opposed the runway extension specifically, and there was an even higher level of opposition to the JAAP Preferred Options as a whole.

By suspending the JAAP, the most contentious issue in it – the extension of the runway and the expansion of the airport more generally – will no longer form part of the JAAP when it finally resumes. This means that we will be denied the opportunity of a Public Examination of this issue, whether or not a Public Inquiry is called to examine the planning application.

We have been in touch with the Government Office for the East of England and are aware that they are monitoring the situation. Our minds would be put more at ease if GO East were to issue an Article 14 direction letter preventing Southend Council deciding the application.

Thank you for your continued assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald
Chairman, SAEN

Tags: , ,
Posted in Letters, Planning Application | No Comments »

We have been betrayed over airport extension

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

When it was said some years back the only way Southend Airport was to continue under new safety guidelines would be to extend the runway, we were assured there would be no increased flights.

What we strongly object to is being betrayed with what now appears to be a completely different objective.

We have been told the aircraft proposed are quieter, but research has shown the aircraft to be used are in fact noisier.

The CO2 emissions will increase by 5,700 per cent, which contradicts the Government’s proposals to reduce CO2 emissions by 2050.

Over the past 50 years the area surrounding the airport has become densely populated and is ill equipped to have an airport with its noise, night flights and pollution.

If this was to be proposed as a new airport, no council in Britain would grant permission.

While Southend should embrace the prospect of job creation, HSBC has recently announced some 750 local job losses. Therefore councillors would be well advised to look at the bigger picture before making such bold statements that Southend Airport expects to offer 6,000 jobs. We would like to see how.

Alex and June Carr
Wells Avenue
Southend

…Michael Harvey is fortunate he lives out at Daws Heath (Nov 12).

Those living in the rather more densely populated areas closer to Southend Airport are less relaxed about the potential problem of noise.

I don’t expect a sound commercial operator such as Stobart to reveal more of its plans than it needs. The fact remains that in the planning statement in the current application, the upper limit proposed is 53,300 air movements per year, equal to an average of 146 flights in a 24-hour period.

Even this figure excludes eight categories of flights, including “diversions from other airports”, the category Michael Harvey noted gave rise to 20 diversionary flights from London City Airport on one day.

D M Tuff
Dandies Drive
Leigh

…I attended the packed meeting at Leigh Community Centre to discuss the planning application by Southend Airport.

Although Southend Council leader Nigel Holdcroft assured us the planning committee would be under no pressure when deciding on this application, does he really want us to believe Conservative councillors on this committee will vote against it, knowing full well the cabinet wants this approval?

It’s such an important issue that will affect the lives of many residents, especially in the Leigh and Belfairs areas, that it should not be decided by councillors, many of whom do not live in the airport area.

In this relatively pleasant area, we don’t want the disruption an expansion will bring.

As the large majority of residents present at the meeting voted in favour of a pubic inquiry before any decision is made, surely this is the only truly democratic way any future decision could be made?

John Beckett
Woodcutters Avenue
Leigh

,,,In answer to Mike Harvey (Nov 12), yes, we did notice the extra flights as we live next to the airport, but the noise from these aircraft do not bother us as they where turbo prop Fokker F27s and BAE 146s and have a low noise envelope.

Those who are against the expansion are more concerned with much noisier aircraft, like Boeing 737s and Airbus 319s and 320s which are used by the likes of Ryanair and Easy Jet among others.

We had to laugh at Mr Harvey’s comments on gridlock of the roads.

Didn’t he realise passengers on these diverted aircraft would not have had cars, as they were expecting to land at City Airport?

Mike and Carol Allchorne
Anne Boleyn Drive
Rochford

Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Loss of faith in local town planners

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Dear Sirs,
Request for a Public Inquiry for the planning Application number:- 09/01960/FULM Runway Extension for London Southend Airport.
Please can you help in this matter?
We are rapidly losing faith in the local Conservative run Council
Their arrogance is beyond belief.
They wish to expand the local airport, which is sited within a densely populated area. Having carried out a consultation – when many of the households concerned never received any information about, they had to repeat the exercise and extend the closing date but then, they decided not to publish the results!
The results have only been obtained by applying under the Freedom of Information Act
The results showed that 80% of the people who responded (and several thousand people did respond) did not want an expansion but the local conservative party have decided that this is not representative of the majority of the views of the local people……..so they are going ahead anyway!
The airport has been sold to the Stobart Group. The fears of many people living nearby or under the flight path are:
1. the increased emissions from freight aircraft and in particular the disturbance at night, as currently there are no restrictions on night flights involving freight.
The flight path travels over a densley populated area as well as several schools within the area, including one school for children with special needs. At the moment the teachers at the schools have to stop teaching whenever a plane goes over. For the number of flights to be increased, the education of the children at these schools is likely to be seriously disrupted.
The quality of life for many thousands of people will be adversely affected by the smell and pollution from an increase in freight planes as well as the increased disturbance especially at night.
2. There are only two main roads in and out of our town: the A13 and A127. Both of these roads are gridlocked during the rush hours. In order to accommodate the expansion and extension of the runway, a diversion is to be made of another busy main road within the town that currently runs across the end of the existing runway. The plan is to divert this busy main road into an even busier main road that leads directly off the A127 -and no one on the local planning committee seems to understand that this will create a gridlock with the local traffic, especially during rush hour as many local people use them to avoid the A127. At the moment these two roads are very busy throughout the day, but especially during the rush hour, but to merge them in this way, will creat havoc as traffic silts back up on the A127.
3. The only means of access to the airport from the main A127 is through residential areas. Having sold the airport to the Stobart Group will, many of the residents of this town believe, increase heavy goods vehicles on the surrounding residential roads and all the schools within the area. There will be further havoc and traffic pollution to the many local people trying to gain access to their local schools in the morning or to get to work.
It is the belief of many people in this town, that this is too big a project for a few misinformed and arrogant local town planners to decide the fate of many thousands of residents whose lives will be blighted if this expansion is allowed to go ahead – please can this matter be ‘called in’ so that a proper public enquiry may be set up to look at the implications for thousands of residents and several schools under the flight path of this small airport, to determine the impact of such an expansion such as:
More climate change emissions
More road traffic
More noise
We no longer have any faith in the decency of the local council to deal with this matter. We, like many of the hundreds of people who turn up at meetings to protest about this expansion believe that we have been lied to by the local council and that behind closed doors, some kind of deal has been struck and that the residents of this town will just have to put up with it.
We attach a copy of our letter that has been sent to every member of the local planning committee, for more detailed information. Not one of them has replied because they have all been told that they cannot comment. What kind of country are we living in, where the views of the local electorate are ignored.
We want a proper enquiry into the the cause and effect of expanding the airport thereby increasing flights, day and night over densely populated areas.
Regards
Mr. & Mrs. Shardlow

Tags:
Posted in Government, Letters, Planning Application | No Comments »

Expansion at airport unnecessary

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Opinion on Southend Airport’s expansion is polarised into either “its progress” or “nightmare traffic congestion, noise nuisance and pollution”.

We’ve arrived at this point after an expensive joint council-backed consultation.

Just mention sustainability and the environment and pro-airport people say that “tree huggers”

(environmentalists) are nimbys who do not understand business issues and just want to stop prosperity.

Far from it in my experience, because I am a businessman, but also a committed marine conservationist, who realises that protecting our environment now is our best investment for future prosperity.

A recent UN-backed study found money invested in protecting nature can bring huge financial returns.

To all those genuinely concerned folk who tell me they support the airport expansion because they want prosperity for their kids, I would say look at what is happening to your local environment and look into the wider global concerns we have right now.

Protect the environment and deal with these issues now and your children’s children will prosper.

But if we don’t protect them there will be nothing left to pass on. We all want to leave a legacy to our children, but change must start somewhere.

It’s absurd for us residents to be doing our bit by fitting low-energy light bulbs, taking fewer foreign holidays, turning our thermostats down and driving our cars around less if our civic planners decide to blow it all on a prestigious, but strategically unnecessary expansion at Southend Airport.

Bob Archell
Flemming Avenue
Leigh

Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Share your environmental concerns

Saturday, November 21st, 2009

Hello Everyone!
Thank you to those who have contacted us with their ideas and letters to Councillors on Night Flights and Noise. Don’t forget that one e-mail can now be sent to all members of the Developmental Control Committee at one go by sending it to sbc-dcc@saen.org.uk. Thank you.

Now this week I would like us all to concentrate on the environment. It is a huge subject, and no doubt you will have your own ideas about which part of the environment is dearest to your heart!

Just a few ideas from my postbag:-

  • The Nottingham Agreement signed up to in June, 2008.
  • Climate Change and what Southend Council should be doing about it.
  • Noise Pollution by day and night.
  • Air Pollution by day and night.
  • Local amenities affected by the above.
  • Aviation Industry pledge to curb emissions.
  • Lack of monitoring for Nitric Oxide, nItrogen Oxide, Sulphur Oxide, Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Monoxide near the airport or contributory roads.
  • Stench of aviation fuel.
  • 24,000 die each year in Britain as a result of air pollution (Lib-Dem figures)
  • Dumping of fuel over Rochford before landing (not confirmed)

Last Thursday, Rochford Council said that there would too much pollution in Rochford if a development of about 260 houses was allowed to go ahead – they then passed a motion allowing 53,300 planes to pass through Southend Airport, right on their doorstep!

That should be enough to get you started! Remember to focus on local issues and by all means send a copy of the letter to your own Councillors to keep them in the picture, if they are not on the Developmental Control Committee. Keep writing – and thanks again.

Kiti

Further information

Tags: , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

« Older Entries