Mr Jarvis,
In reply to your e-mail, I will have to begin by saying that it was not my intention to flatter you with comments, but only to inform. I have taken your points in the same order in which you wrote to the web-site.
May I ask you to outline the economic benefits that you feel the airport extension will bring to the town? As stated already on our website, most money will be transported off to the destination of the passenger. This airport will be much more of a return destination than a place to visit, given that a great deal of the town is comprised of empty office blocks and disused industrial estates, not to mention the dreadful state of the roads which seem to have been neglected in favour of multi-million-pound ‘road improvements’.
You say ‘…even if it does not amount to 6,700 jobs…’ Does this mean that you finally admit that this is a fictitious total?
The ‘unemployed of Southend’ have been fed unrealistic hopes of jobs in the rush to get the airport expanded, and any Council worth its salt would balance the needs of jobs against the reality of noise, pollution, night flights and road congestion. The Council, however, seems to want to be in charge of a City now, and we all know that cities tend to become overcrowded, noisy, polluted and expensive to live in. Expanding the airport will not help to solve City problems, but rather exacerbate them.
The longer runway will mean that planes flying to the south-west will be able to take off further along and it has been estimated that some aircraft will be only 70 feet above the rooftops of the nearest houses. The ILS at the north-east will assist with landings from the south-west, but these will be less than from the opposite direction simply because of the prevailing wind direction. It was not considered necessary to put one in before now.
Have you confused your ‘…thousands of residents demonstrating.’ with the news from Tunisia and Libya? I must say that most protests against small-time developments such as this will normally attract small numbers of protesters, and I cannot recall any recent local protests where thousands have been noted. Perhaps you would like to point them out to me. We have not thus far organised any major demonstrations.
But I am not in the business of making comparisons. Nor do I really want to spend a great deal of time answering points that have already been made. You are not correct in your assumption that the church is happy with the changes to the front graveyard wall, and that is the reason that the church authority has decided to hold a meeting of parishioners, petitioners and objectors on Friday. You say you are guessing that most of the objectors are SAEN members. Well, guess away, Mr Jarvis! I personally have no idea who the other objectors are, only that as a parishioner of St Laurence myself, I have every right to comment on these changes on my doorstep. SAEN published no urgent appeal to members to object to this part of the Planning Application.
‘Without the runway extension, there would be no restrictions on night flights…’ This sounds a little as if we have been offered an ultimatum by Stobart’s. Do you think it is right that a businessman, however prosperous and powerful he considers himself, should challenge the Council and the people of Southend in this way? Is he above the law, or beyond the voice of reason to act in this way? The Council have said that the subject of night flights will be on the agenda of a Council meeting to be held soon, so perhaps the voice of reason has reached their ears at last, and the question of night flights will be resolved.
I hope you feel that this has answered you latest tirade, Mr Jarvis. If you have any proof that what we say or print on the web-site is untrue or misleading, please let us know, but if the truth hurts, I am sorry you do not like it.
K Theobald
