From: D E Simpkins, Taunton Drive, Westcliff.

I am objecting to the application for expansion of Southend Airport on the following rounds (not in any particular order):

1. The unacceptable increase in noise.
2. Effect on the local environment.
3. With the likelihood of runway expansion at Stansted and the possibility of a new London Airport in the Thames Estuary, an expansion at Southend is unnecessary and of no benefit to the local population.
4. The flight path is too close to densely populated areas and an accident is waiting to happen.
5. Consequential lowering of local property values.

Regarding noise I must point out that although Airbus 319/320 aircraft are “quieter”, they are still noisy and since there will be far more flights, the sheer amount of noise will increase to an unacceptable level. Mitigation of this by an undertaking to take off and land in a North Easterly direction does not stack up.

Even if that were the case there will be planes coming over Leigh and North Westcliff to land every few minutes which will still be fairly noisy even with engines throttled back.

In addition, they will be waiting to take off at the start o the runway with engines running then accelerating at full thrust with all the noise directed back at North Westcliff and Eastwood.

However the fact is that planes normally take off towards the South West because they need to take off against the prevailing wind. To take off safely towards the North East they will probably need an even longer runway, which is definitely not going to happen, so there will always be an excuse to continue to take off predominantly towards the South West.

Whilst the additional flights are claimed to be with A319/320′s, there appears to be no limit on older even noisier planes. These are even more likely to need to take off in a South Westerly direction. There will undoubtedly be even more of them as they are the most likely planes to be used for freight.

As far as I can tell from the Airbus technical date there are no freight versions of the A319/320, although the A320 can carry 7 freight pallets in its normal holds, it highly unlikely to be used part loaded for freight. Stobart are a freight logistics company. 30 freight flights a night and many more during the day, using old noisy aircraft is unacceptable.

There are already a few large planes using the airport and they are very noisy.

The local road infrastructure will not cope with the projected increase in traffic, much of which will be heavy goods. Even if something can be done about that, there will be huge disruption to local residents and the bottleneck will be merely moved to Rayleigh or the A127/A130 junction.

The atmosphere will be loaded with jet fuel fumes, with consequent deleterious effect on people’s health, particularly that of children and the elderly.

The expansion is not likely to mean many extra jobs for the people of Southend. It is highly likely that a lot of these prospective jobs will be filled by commuters from elsewhere. I have nothing against them, but the jobs should go to Southend people.

I believe this expansion, and the disposal of the airport before that, are much more to do with the commercial aspirations of Stobart than the benefit to Southend. More housing and local industry would be of more use and have little impact on the local environment.

Undertakings must have been given by the councils to Stobart, about which local people were not consulted, and these should be discussed publicly now.

LEIGH organisations have continued to put pressure on Southend Council to stop the expansion of Southend Airport with the extension of the runway.

Former Lib Dem councillor Al Smulian last week warned that if the extension went ahead it could force the closure of Blenheim Primary School.

The threat to this school was exclusively revealed in the LEIGH TIMES some weeks ago when we revealed that the fact that it was in the Public Safety Zone meant that it should not be allowed to build any further extensions and that areas in this zone should not be used for leisure purposes.

One source at the school commented: “We have been told that there would be grants for noise insulation – but you can’t do this to a playground.”

Mr Smulian, a long-serving governor at the school, has revealed that teachers already had to stop essons while a plane flew over the school because of the noise.

He said if bigger planes were involved it could threaten the whole future of the school.

The only alternative would be to build a new school – but neither the school nor Southend Council had the resources to do this, he said.

Alistair Welch, managing director of the airport, has countered, though, by saying the decibel level now if anyone stood outside the school was 56.

If the runway is extended and passenger planes introduced the level would still be only 58 decibels – which would be less than half the noise level at which a noise insulation grant would be recommended.

SOUTHEND Council’s development control committee will still make the final decision on the Southend Airport expansion plans.

A bid by the Liberal Democrat group to get any recommendation by the committee debated by the full council, which would then make the final decision, was defeated at last Thursday’s full Southend Council meeting by 30 votes to 16, with two abstentions.

The application to extend the runway will be debated as scheduled by the development control committee late in January at a special meeting – provided, of course, the Government beforehand does not call in the application.

West Leigh Coun Nigel Holdcroft, leader of the council ,said he would have had more sympathy with the Liberal Democrat motion had it been put forward immediately the planning application was submitted.

The problem with leaving it late in the day, as they had done, was that a number of councillors, who were not members of the development control committee had barred themselves from taking part in any debate by making comments on the application, which could be defined as pre-judging the application.

Under Government legislation once a councillor speaks in favour of or against an application in public they cannot then take part in a council debate.

Coun Holdcroft also explained that another reason why it was best left to the development control committee was because its members had received special training in dealing with complex planning issues.

He felt the motion to refer the application to full council was a ‘cheap political stunt’ by the Lib Dems because their leader, Coun Graham Longley had not discussed the motion either with himself, other group leaders or the town clerk, Rob Tinlin.

“I would have been more sympathetic had he followed that process,” he said.

Coun Martin Terry, leader of the Independent group, said he could not support the motion either because of ‘moving the goalposts’ halfway through the planning process.

Coun David Norman, leader of the Labour group, said they supported the motion because they had always been against the change in the council’s constitution that prevented important planning issues being referred to full council.

Coun Longley said his motion was all about restoring democracy to the town by giving the council back the right to make the final decision on this particular important planning application.

“It is about ensuring that members are able to represent the residents and express their views over a matter which affects the economic regeneration of our town,” he continued.

“It is about not leaving such a major decision to as few as just nine members – a majority of the development control committee.

“When it comes to applications of the significance of this one then surely it should take responsibility as a whole – as does the Rochford District Council.

“A number of recent applications could and should have been brought before this council – Roots Hall and the new football ground, the seafront and the Pier.”

He maintained that it was wrong, for example, that a ward like Eastwood Park, directly affected by the runway extension would not have a voice on the committee, because none of their three councillors were members [of the development control committee].