I feel that I must respond to the vitriolic letter written by the embittered Lee Jarvis in last week’s Yellow Advertiser, but I shall try to do so without launching a personal attack.
Mr Jarvis accuses SAEN of telling lies, avoiding the truth, making things up and of not really being worried about the residents of Southend, and by implication, accuses Denis Walker of the same. Truth is stranger than fiction and SAEN members, committee and followers have kept a strict regard for the truth ever since their first meeting. People at that meeting were pleased that someone had volunteered to take on the case of the airport extension, that spokesmen would be dealing with the authorities, writing letters, organising leaflet drops, allocating finance to where it can do the most good, researching information, and above all, putting the residents of Southend first.
Sometimes lies go under the title of ‘spin’; the spin created by the Council and not contradicted by anyone at the airport would suggest that there ill be 6,700 jobs available when the airport expands. This is very far from the truth. Southampton, quoted by Mr Jarvis, has nearly 2 million passengers a year and ‘more than 1200(people) in 30 different companies of whom 200 are BAA Southampton employees’ (BAA Southampton).
I do understand the desperate need for jobs in Southend, as elsewhere, in this current economic climate, but this inflated figure is not to be believed. It includes the forecast for jobs to be created within the Saxon Business Park to be created as part of the Rochford/Southend Area Action Plan, of which the airport extension was only a part. Taking the planning application out of the Action Plan seems to have brought the rest of that particular initiative to a dead halt, as nothing more has been said about it for well over a year.
Mr Jarvis says that ‘most residents want the runway extension to happen’, but if this is so, where are all the letters of support that they could have sent to the Council when the proposition was first made? The letters sent to the Council during the Consultation were overwhelmingly against the extension, against the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, against the destruction of part of Eastwood Church wall and against the thought of having 52,500 flights a year as well as running night flights for freight planes.
SAEN is worried; worried about the apathy that a lot of residents have; worried about the effects of noise and air pollution on our resident’s physical and mental health; worried about the potential loss of a church which is older than Southend itself; worried about jamming up the two main approach roads of the Borough with extra traffic; worried that a project which could be short-lived in view of failing oil supplies will spell devastation for parts of the town; worried that 70,000 people under the flight path may actually be in danger from the threat of airport expansion.
I am sorry, Mr Jarvis, but you are wrong on all counts in your letter. Please check out the SAEN website at http://www.saen.org.uk.
Kiti Theobald
Westcliff-on-Sea
Tags: Kiti Theobald, Lee Jarvis
[...] Read Kiti Theobald’s response [...]
Oh boy i am flattered that i have so many comments about me on your website.
Regarding your comments Mrs Theobald i will respond in the same polite manner then. Firstly i am afraid SAEN do tell countless lies. It clearly stated on your website that SAEN know for a fact that the airport extension will not bring any economic benifts to the town. How you can state this is truly unbelievable to say the least, and without any eveidence to back it up, can only be taken as a lie i am afraid. Oh and I have already commented on this point to Denis Walker on here, but as per most of mine or other PRO airport supporters the comments never hardly get published, ( i guess the real truth hurts)
Secondly even if it does not amount to 6,700 jobs created, it is still going to be a considerably high amount of jobs, as i am sure even you can admit that airports, hotels etc need a lot of staff to be able to operate? I am sure the unemployed of Southend will love you for trying to block that.
Thirdly i am afraid its SAEN putting residents at risk. With the runway extension in place, the airport will be putting in an ILS (Instrument Landing System) This improves safety, and enables planes to land and take off at a much higher angle, which basically means they wont have to fly so low over peoples houses. If it does not go ahead then there will be no ILS, so planes will be flying lower, louder (As older aircraft would have to be used) and be far more pollutting.
Fourth you keep saying you have the overwhelming majority in your favour, but how comes whenever you have demonstrations you only have 20 people turn up (Civic centre 4th Febs Echo), March from priory park to airport (20 people again) Where are all these thousands of anti airport campaigners Mrs Theobald who you claim are so much against expansion? Surely they would have turned up to support you. I certainly would have if i believed in something that much. Whenever i have seen alot of other protest groups on the tv there has been thousands of residents demonstrating.
Fifth you claim potential loss of the church if the runway extension goes ahead. Yet again further lies from yourself. The airport is merely replacing the church wall with a yew hedge. The wall will then be rebuilt at the other side of the church and the airport will also resurface the 19 space church car park, as well as landscaping the area around it. So maybe you could tell me how this is the potential loss of the church mrs Theobald? Sounds to me like they are improving the church. Plus from reports in the press the church are quite happy with the changes, but 9 people have objected to them (im guessing most of these are SEAN members). Actually while we are on the subject of SAEN members, maybe you could answer me what no other SAEN campaigner will. How many SAEN members do you actually have?
One last point, Without the runway extension there would be no restrictions on night flights, so when peoples sleep is disturbed because of louder, lower flying aircraft, i think we know which group residents of the town will be blaming for that don’t we.
Oh im sure if Stobart wanted to turn the airport into a freight depot, they would not have spent millions of pounds on a new passenger terminal and train station. Hardly seems geared towards freight does it?
So i am afraid it is you who is wrong on all counts Mrs Theobald.
Im guessing you wont be publishing this reply, as you dont seem to like a two sided argument.
[...] This letter is in response to a comment from Lee Jarvis [...]