Archive for the ‘Letters’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Anna, listen to town residents

Friday, December 17th, 2010

Yet again councillor Anna Waite knows what’s best for Southend, despite the wishes of most of its residents.

She wanted to build on the beaches at Westcliff but this was repelled. As cabinet member for transport, she set back the infrastructure of the town with damaging humps, unused cycle paths and pretentious attempts at road alterations, government funded and costing motorists time and money and distress. Now Mrs Waite is campaigning on behalf of Stobarts for a so-called airport, once again opposed by a majority of voters. There is a flight once a week to Jersey. Call that an airport? City Airport is struggling.

Stobarts is making a big mistake. It wants the airport as a freight depot to transport goods overseas from a coastal base avoiding flights across land areas. Tough luck for Leigh residents as noisy freight planes keep them awake at night.

But Stobart will think again when they attempt to use their lorries on the gridlocked infrastructure to Southend. They will lose money.

Len Lierens
Southchurch Road
Southend

Tags:
Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | 1 Comment »

Little to be gained from airport runway extension

Wednesday, December 15th, 2010

Congratulations to John Geoghegan on his article which presented both sides of the argument on the proposed Southend Airport runway extension (Dec 9).

But there are comments to be made on the statements by councillor Anna Waite. Her blog expresses the wish that Southend Airport would “start offering flights”. Flights have already been on offer for some time, but the prices and times are not competitive enough for the service to expand. It has been cheaper to drive to Stansted or Heathrow.

Other airports manage on far fewer night flights than Stobart seems to require. The number quoted in the planning permission is far in excess of what we experience now, and does not include planes which are not restricted by current rules.

These will be the smaller, noisier and more polluting planes Ms Waite fears.

She also mentions the “constant road closures”

in Eastwoodbury Lane every time a plane takes off, but we know this will not apply once the new road has been built, which councillor Holdcroft says will go ahead even if the runway is not extended.

She mentions the kudos of a fully-functioning airport and supply chains across the area, but it is still doubtful whether the modifications to our roads will make as much difference to travelling times as expected, and the kudos will, I am sure, affect few beyond the council itself.

The pier is mentioned in the blog as one of the economic drivers of the town, but so little investment has gone into it over the last 30 years one would almost believe the council would be glad if it fell down and ceased to be a problem.

The space-age structure on the south station beggars belief as it appears to have no specific function, and certainly will not keep visitors dry or warm, any more than the proposed open air theatre will.

Kiti Theobald
Brendon Way
Westcliff

Tags:
Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Correspondence with a supporter of the expansion

Saturday, December 11th, 2010

Dear Mr Jarvis,

I will address your points inline for ease of reference. You should also refer to the objection to the planning application which SAEN submitted, which provides more detail, at:

http://www.saen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/SAEN-Objection-v1.0.pdf

On 11 Dec 2010, at 15:25, Lee Jarvis wrote:

Good afternoon Mr Walker,

I felt I had to email yourself and your group (SAEN) as I am getting sick and tired of hearing you all go on about how bad the Airport expansion will be for the area.

To be blunt, that’s just tough. You have the right to express your opinions on the matter, as do we.

I live right next to the airport in ***** so will no doubt be affected quite consideribly by the airport expanding. However, I am 100 percent behind the expansion plans, as is nearly every single person I have spoke to ever since the Stobart group have announced their plans. I have hardly heard one negative comment over the future plans (And believe me I speak to a lot of people on this subject).

I can’t account for your experiences. Perhaps you are very careful only to associate with those in favour of the airport. However, all consultations on the matter have revealed an overwhelming majority in opposition to the airport expansion proposals. A petition was recently submitted to the European Parliament by David Amess MP containing around 3,000 signatures of those opposed to the airport expansion.

How you can not see this will be beneficial for the town of Southend and the surrounding areas is beyond me. I have no sympathy whatsoever for residents who live right near the Airport.

Many people have little choice over where they live. A small regional airport catering for up to 50,000 passengers a year with flying clubs and a maintenance and repair facility is an entirely different prospect from one which is aiming to serve 2 million passengers a year and act as a freight hub. People moving to Southend before 2008 would have had no idea that the latter was on the cards, as the plans had not yet been published.

If you don’t want to be affected by airport noise, then why on earth move right next to an airport in the first place? After all, the airport was there way before them, and ever since I was young (I am 31 now) there has always been talk of airport expansion plans.

I, too, am 31. There have been two serious attempts to expand the airport in my memory:

  • the one that finally failed in 2005 as a result of the campaign mounted by CAAG and St Laurence Church being granted Grade I listed status
  • the current one.

Before that, I recall Southend Council squandering tax payers’ assets by writing off the £11 million of debt the airport had run up under their management, selling a 150-year lease on the airport to Regional Airports for one pound in 1994 and then over the following 16 years pouring a further £5.2 million into the airport in the form of the “Airport Development Fund”, charging rent way below market value for land that falls outside the main lease and most recently, promising to subsidise the road the airport wants to build to enable the runway to be extended to the tune of £2 million.

I get fed up with having to travel to Stansted, Gatwick, Luton Airport whenever I want to go away.

This does not sit well with what you say above. If you want to travel by air, why don’t you move nearer to an airport that flies where you want to go?

I, in turn, have no sympathy for those who choose to fly abroad on holiday, unnecessarily emitting greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere where they do the most damage. There are plenty of fine holiday destinations in the UK and Europe that can be reached conveniently by surface transport.

I often get told by older residents how great the 60′s and 70′s were here when they could fly from their local airport (Southend) across Europe. By having the runway extended this will again be possible.

Have you seen the list of destinations to which Aer Arran proposes to operate? Currently there are two: Waterford and Galway. You can already reach Ireland very cheaply and conveniently by train and ferry.

You will note that in the same year Southend Council sold the airport, the Channel Tunnel opened, providing access to Europe by train. There are also, of course, ferry services.

The services operated in the 1960s and 70s used the current runway, and there is nothing to stop such services operating today. However, many local people also remember the terrible noise they had to suffer in that period and the campaign group that objected to it (BANG – Blenheim Anti-Noise Group). You will also note that the large London airports made many services from Southend commercially unviable, which they continue to be.

Furthermore, a new, better, bigger airport will create a lot more jobs for local residents and encourage more businesses to open, hence bring more money into the local community. Something that currently is a major problem.

Airports actually employ relatively few people – particularly those with budget airlines, as Southend would be. Typically, airports employ around 100 people per million passengers. If Southend somehow manages to attract 2 million passengers per annum (which is seriously doubtful), that would be 200 employees. More than that have been made redundant since Stobart took over, so we would still be looking at a net loss of jobs since 2008. Of course, the Maintenance and Repair facilities also employ people, but these are not dependent on an extended runway and would potentially lose runway slots to passenger or freight services in any case.

The aviation industry in the UK currently causes a net loss to our economy of around £18-20 billion each year. Some detail on this can be found at:

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/downloads/Regional_Airports_Report_summary_Sept2009.doc

I have also been told that one of the main persons behind SAEN has not even been a resident in Southend for many years, having only recently moved back to the area. I therefore don’t see what right they have to try and block these plans. Don’t get me wrong everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however I feel this persons views should not be taken into proper consideration due to them not being a long term resident.

I have no idea to whom you are referring, as to my knowledge, all members of the SAEN committee have lived in the area for a long time. However, just because someone has only just moved to the area that doesn’t make their opinion any less valid. I’m sure that you wouldn’t discount the views of someone new to the area who supported the airport expansion. In any case, we present a united front and are campaigning as an organisation representing our sizeable membership, not as individuals.

I also imagine that a high percentage of your group (SAEN) are retired, so are not worried about the high numbers of people in the area who are currently unemployed and could benefit greatly from the new airport.

I don’t know what you base that assumption on. Even if it were true, such people have children and grandchildren and unless they are unimaginably selfish, will want them to have job opportunities. According to the Audit Commission, the unemployment rate in Southend is 7.1% (see http://tinyurl.com/southend-unemployment). We’ll assume a population of about 180,000 (which is what the Council claims it is, as they maintain that the 2001 census was inaccurate with its ~160,000 figure). 59.6% of the population is of working age (again, from the Audit Commission). That gives us around 7,600 officially unemployed, and of course there are others excluded from the official figures. 200 jobs don’t make much of a dent in that.

People objecting to the expansion of the airport are not doing so to prevent the creation of jobs, but to prevent the serious degradation it would cause to their quality of life. The small number of airport employees would also suffer this degradation if they lived in Southend and would add to our already serious road congestion issues if they did not.

I also presume that none of you like travelling by air either and will NOT use Southend Airport in the future. Or maybe you do travel abroad and use other airports such as Stansted. If this is the case I don’t suppose you give a second thought to local residents there who are affected by noise, but are quite happy to use the airport?

I have never flown and have no intention of doing so. I can’t speak for other SAEN members, not that it’s any of your or my business whether they choose to use Southend Airport.

We actually give the example of Stansted on page 5 of our objection to the planning application. You will see that there are no houses directly under the flightpath of Stansted until you get a long way from the airport. Despite this, there is a very strong anti-expansion campaign in north-west Essex – Stop Stansted Expansion.

Southend is very unusual in having such dense population directly under the flight path and so close to the airport. With the runway extension, houses would be even closer to the runway than at London City Airport.

It would be very interesting indeed if one of the local papers or Radio stations could do a poll on how many residents are FOR or AGAINST airport expansion. I think you might well find the results very shocking, and realise that you don’t have as much support as you may think.

We already have the official Council consultations, which variously show between 60 and 80% opposition. Likewise, the public meetings held by Leigh Town Council have been packed out with objectors. Polls conducted by the media (particularly if done online) are not likely to be as accurate as there would be no requirement for the participants to identify themselves. However, to date, no such polls have been conducted.

I say good on Stobart for breathing new life back into Southend.

Perhaps you should speak to those who have previously suffered Stobart’s aviation ambitions at Carlisle. Fortunately, there, the Judicial Review was successful in preventing the airport from expanding. We’re obviously hoping for a similar result.

Thank you for your time.

Regards

Lee Jarvis

Regards,

–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/

Tags:
Posted in Letters, Pro-aviation Lobby | 3 Comments »

SEEOG Objection to loss of farmland

Thursday, December 2nd, 2010

2 December 2010

John Williams,
Head of Legal and Democratic Services,
Southend-on-Sea Borough Council,
Civic Centre,
Victoria Avenue,
Southend-on-Sea. SS2 6ER

Dear Mr. Williams,

Southend-On-Sea Borough Council
Sections 122 & 123 Of The Local Government Act 1972 (As Amended)
Appropriation & Disposal Of Open Space Land At St Laurence Park

I wish to make the following objections:

  1. The farmland being appropriated to replace the parkland lost to the road is better left as farmland. This country needs to be self-sufficient in food and not reliant on foreign imports in these turbulent times of financial crisis and the energy shortages to come. Please read the Soil Associations’ report at

    http://www.soilassociation.org/Whyorganic/Climatefriendlyfoodandfarming/ Foodsecurity/tabid/345/Default.aspx

    From which I quote:

Food security

From 2006 to 2008, global food prices rose rapidly – caused by global market failures, fluctuating oil prices, increases in extreme weather events, and the unsustainable and immoral dash by the US to grow crops to ‘feed’ cars rather than people. Social and political unrest at the cost and scarcity of staple foods followed in 14 countries worldwide – from ‘tortilla riots’ in Mexico to protests over the price of pasta in Italy.

In the UK, we have not yet experienced the worst effects of a globally imbalanced food system, but here too, food security is again an issue of public concern. The first review Gordon Brown commissioned on becoming Prime Minister was an analysis of food issues. The resulting report published in July 2008 concluded that: ‘existing patterns of food production are not fit for a low-carbon, more resource-constrained future’, and ‘existing patterns of food consumption will result in our society being loaded with a heavy burden of obesity and diet-related ill health.’

This stark analysis chimes with the Soil Association’s concern that our current UK food and farming system is not ‘fit’ to meet the challenges of climate change, long-term costlier oil, or for providing a foundation for people’s health. Unfortunately, the Strategy Unit paper appears to be a ‘minority report’ and not the major influence over Government policy on food and farming.

At the end of 2008 the Soil Association published An inconvenient truth about food, a report on Britain’s food security. This report was based on ‘Rethinking Britain’s Food Security’ – a research report for the Soil Association, written by David Barling, Rosalind Sharpe and Tim Lang of City University London.

An inconvenient truth about food summarises:

  • UK food self-sufficiency has declined over the past decade and we have become more reliant on imported food.
  • Government faith in global markets is undermined by recent events revealing their volatility and unreliability.
  • The vulnerability of both the UK and EU food and farming systems to the new fundamentals of Climate Change and scarcer, costlier oil is underplayed in current policy.
  • There is little awareness of the lack of resilience within UK based food and farming especially in terms of sufficient, skilled labour and the supporting regional infrastructure that a healthier diet and ‘a low-carbon, more resource constrained future’ necessitates.
  • There is no overall, future-proofed ‘Food Plan for Britain’.

So the facts are here, but are you going to ignore them?

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Carole Shorney
Secretary, South East Essex Organic Gardeners

Tags: ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | No Comments »

Questions for Councillors to ask at Special Meeting, 4th Nov

Thursday, November 4th, 2010

Dear Councillor,

Further to my letter of 2nd November and in the spirit of Rob Tinlin’s advice that

members of the public can approach their local Councillor in advance of the meeting, if they wish to raise any queries.

I would like to raise a number of queries regarding the report you are to consider this afternoon on behalf of the membership of SAEN. You should bear in mind that at each of the three consultations regarding this scheme (two JAAP consultation phases and the planning application consultation), a substantial majority of respondents has been opposed to the extension of the runway and associated works, including this road.

Having drawn this to your attention, I would like to now turn to the report to be considered by this afternoon’s “special” meetings. I will make use of the paragraph numbering in the report for ease of reference.

1.1 The “significant benefits” claimed for this section of road have not previously been discussed publicly. If the benefits are really that significant, why was this road not proposed independently of the runway extension? Isn’t it the case that this benefit is only now being claimed for convenience?

2.1 d) The building of this road requires the use of park land. Has the Council learned nothing from its previous attempt to build a road through a park and the fact that 30,000 people objected to that proposal?

2.1 f) On paper, the “small net increase in the size of St Laurence Park” sounds fine. No reference is made here to the intention we understand has been expressed elsewhere (and is hinted at in section 3.4 of the report to this meeting) to build a further road through the park at a later date. Indeed, both maps at the end of the report show a brief continuation of road leaving the roundabout to the east into St Laurence Park.

2.1 g) What constitutes a “minor amendment” here?

2.2 The map at Appendix 2 shows a large portion of Footpath 121 being extinguished. It is not clear from this report when this would be due to happen. Given that this report does not deal with the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, can it be confirmed that the footpath would not be stopped up unless and until the section of Eastwoodbury Lane is also stopped up?

2.3 Can it be confirmed that no contribution from the Council’s so-called “Airport Development Fund” or any other Council funding sources, has been or will be given to the airport in respect of this development?

2.4 b) The wording here seems vague. Can it be confirmed that the Council will insist on reinstatement of land if one of the Judicial Reviews is successful?

3.4 Consideration of this link road is inseparable from the question of the runway extension as it is contained within the same planning permission. The building of this road at this time is specifically to expedite the construction of the runway and this is acknowledged within 3.4. The assumption that this link road is “relatively non-controversial” is false. Any road building is controversial (and indeed counter-productive) when the world is facing climate change and peak oil. It is grossly irresponsible of the Council to increase road capacity, particularly given that it is signed up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change.

3.7.3 A claim of benefit to the town “irrespective of whether the runway extension proceeds” is illogical – it has already been acknowledged above that if the runway extension does not proceed, the road will be removed. In regard to the 40 year life-span of this road, given that oil is expected to run out by 2030, what use will this road be for the following 20 years?

3.7.5 This paragraph states that the Runway End Safety Area lease currently prevents the construction of the New Link Road. Given the road’s extremely close proximity to the runway it must fall inside the 1:10,000 Public Safety Zone. What assurances does the Council have that using this road will be safe, bearing in mind that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hit by a plane in that Public Safety Zone?

5 SAEN would strongly urge all councillors not to agree to grant the Building Licence. This would save money for the Airport Operating Company and inconvenience for the people of the town. Once the outcome of the Judicial Review is known, the Council will be in a better position to know whether or not to grant the Building Licence.

6 It has already been demonstrated that the New Link Road would not bring significant benefits in its own right as without the runway extension, it would be removed.

Regards,

–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/

Tags:
Posted in Letters, Local Government, News | No Comments »

Open letter to Southend Councillors

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

Dear Councillor,

As you will no doubt be aware, there are three “Special” Council meetings taking place on Thursday this week from 4:30pm to discuss the “link road” between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way that forms part of the planning permission for the runway extension to Southend Airport, which we believe was granted unlawfully. These meetings must be postponed – please read on for the reasons why.

No Publicity

These meetings received no publicity until an inaccurate report appeared in Friday’s Southend Echo. To our knowledge, no attempt was made by the Council to contact SAEN or the SAEN member who is pursuing one of the two Judicial Reviews into the granting of the planning permission to inform them of these meetings. This lack of publicity has meant that we will be unable to comply with the requirement for questions from the public to be submitted at least five working days in advance of the meeting.

Has the Council acted unlawfully?

Further, we understand that a decision on whether to proceed with our member’s Judicial Review will be taken by the High Court within the next two weeks. Given that this is the case, we would urge the council most strongly to postpone these “Special” meetings in order that any suspicions that the Council is being coerced by the airport into acting with haste in this matter are allayed, provide an opportunity for proper public scrutiny and allow the Council to make the decision in possession of the knowledge of whether the High Court intends to investigate the possibility that the Council acted unlawfully in this matter.

Loss of ancient right of way

One of the reasons that SAEN members object to the extension of the runway at Southend Airport is because of the loss of Eastwoodbury Lane, an ancient right of way, that it would necessitate. The “link road” that replaces it would add three-quarters of a mile to a journey from Eastwoodbury Lane east of the airport to St Laurence church, denying the elderly and infirm the opportunity to walk to their local church and encouraging others to make the journey by car instead of on foot.

Lack of Security

The Stobart Group’s Chief Executive, Andrew Tinkler, has made it clear in numerous press comments that his company sees Southend Airport as a key part of its multimodal freight strategy. Security at Southend Airport has never been even close to adequate by today’s standards and it would be easy for terrorists to take advantage of this fact. What is being done to improve the situation and who is going to pay for it? It is not acceptable for Southend council tax payers to foot the bill of policing an airport that is leeching money out of our local economy.

The cost to us all

Aviation is not and has never been profitable. It relies on Government subsidies and other support. For example, aviation fuel is not taxed. It turns out that Southend Airport is also subsidised by Southend Borough Council. One would expect that once the airport lease had been sold (for one pound) by the Council in 1994, that the taxpayer would have stopped subsidising it. Not so. Apparently determined to throw money into a black hole, the Council has given Southend Airport £5.2m since 1996 and yet only received £1.3m in rent since 1994. These figures can be confirmed with Susan Adams, Group Accountant in SBC’s Support Services department.

The 150-year lease signed by the Council in 1994 is spectacularly weighted in the airport lessee’s favour. There are only two explanations for the Council of the time signing that lease – they were either incredibly stupid or very corrupt. When RAL decided to sell the lease to The Stobart Group, they had no trouble in bypassing the clause that meant the Council would see a share of the profit – they sold the company which held the lease, thereby making a profit of £20,999,999 on their £1 investment. At least a proportion of that money rightfully belongs in Council coffers and would go a long way to solving the funding crisis it now has.

Shoddy treatment of Southend residents

The owners of the two smallholdings opposite St Laurence church have been treated with utter contempt by Stobart. First, the airport made derisory offers on their properties, then when one of the owners found a house to move to they were informed that Stobart was no longer offering the deal with which they would buy that property. Both owners have now been informed that Stobart no longer intends to demolish their properties, despite the fact that they are both within the runway Instrument Strip. If the runway extension proceeds, their properties will be worthless and they will receive no compensation. It is time Southend Councillors start to protect the people that elect them instead of the business interests which seek to destroy residents’ livelihoods.

Regards,

–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/

Tags:
Posted in Letters, Local Government | 7 Comments »

Night flights ban should be priority

Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010

From: Ted Clarke, West Leigh resident.

I would like to respond to the comments expressed by Nigel Holdcroft in his article. I find them most disappointing, particularly in the context of Southend Airport.

His initial remarks confirm that the airport leasing arrangements require a legal variation to allow building of the already approved runway extension. In other words, no variation – no extension. He then implies that negotiation on operational terms is possible.

A significant bargaining tool and surprising news to many. Then confusingly, he later berates certain Councillors for ‘misleading the public in suggesting that the council can somehow stop any airport expansion or unilaterally impose restrictions on night flights, flight numbers or a range of other issues which we cannot’. It is true that the airport (as the other party to the lease) will need to agree to revisions – but I think this development must put SBC in the driving seat and I can now understand the optimism of those Councillors he seeks to criticise.

The surprise? SBC had previously argued that the only way forward here was to permit the extension and gain a replacement Section 106 agreement (governing airport operations) – which SBC has now formally adopted.
Nigel played his part in negotiating this new 106 but close scrutiny of it reveals many exemptions to the monthly night flying cap (120). Additionally the much vaunted ‘preferred routing’ is subject to the whims of wind and weather – with ‘safety factors’ always available to explain operational decisions. Most importantly, exemption from the 120 cap for Quota Count zero aircraft will allow unlimited night flying of small jet aircraft with many variants adaptable for freight pallets. Read it carefully and judge its real worth for yourself.

Certainly Councillor Faye Evans must have been bemused by it prior to her recent selection in Belfairs Ward. Her election address claimed that there would be ‘no night flights over Leigh.’ Patently untrue as things stand but no retraction followed (despite being requested to make one). Possibly other Councillors have not understood the ramifications of their support for these measures.

On this basis, there seems little validity in the argument that the new 106 represents an improvement to the previous situation of virtually no controls. How did that previous situation ever arise ? Look no further than SBC. They created the main lease 16 years ago which included permission for 915 night flights monthly instead of prohibiting them altogether.

His article castigates one local resident in spending ‘many tens of thousands’ of public money in seeking to challenge the legality of the extension permission (and for delaying the necessary Council meeting to debate the leasing changes). This is beyond the pale. As a qualified Solicitor surely he should support the principle of Legal Aid as providing the only recourse to the Courts for anyone otherwise unable to afford the action. Additionally, the applicant must prove a worthwhile case before permission is given to commence the Review proper.

Why would this person (apparently fully entitled to such Aid) be driven to such a step? Nigel must be fully aware that -

Current planning legislation delivered three meaningless ‘consultation’ rounds (two for the semi-secret Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) and one for the planning application). None have made any difference to preferred policy decision making – despite the vast majority of respondent objections each time.

The JAAP should have inherently led to an independent ‘Examination in Public’ of all aspects of the Plan and the robustness of the decisions made – including the key component of the extension. But wholesale departures from the Council’s own timetable for final submission to Government (July 2009 latest) saw the airport apply for the extension before the third JAAP consultation round had even been announced. This subtracted the extension from the promised examination and will emasculate it. Many must be asking the question – was that delay deliberate owing to the unexpected scale of local opposition?

There was optimism for a separate Public Enquiry following the volume of complaints made to Government and representations from David Amess about the circumstances of the decision – but this was refused.

The only avenue remaining is the High Court. Good luck to this person I say for showing the guts and determination to stand against the Council/ airport juggernaut.

Since Nigel has raised the question of wasting public money, let’s look at one example of the financial acumen of SBC- its dealings with the airport.

Our council literally gave a 150 year airport lease to the private sector (Regional Airports Ltd.- RAL) in 1994 after writing off almost £12 million – their latest in a series of operational losses. RAL’s wholly owned subsidiary, London Southend Airport Co. Ltd. (LSAC) became the lessee.
The lease was simultaneously accompanied by a separate ‘Development Land Agreement’. This was binding on the Council to pay for the airport infrastructure improvements with money from the sale of a community land asset (it became the retail park at Warner’s Bridge).
The resulting ‘Airport Development Fund’ raised well in excess of £5 million in capital plus interest and is largely spent.
The lease rental formula returned less than £1 million in total to the Council in the fourteen years of RAL involvement.
Because no arrangements were made to the contrary, the lease can be simply passed as an LSAC asset to any new majority shareholder – currently Stobart. In this way SBC are denied any profit share to recoup their considerable investment or any say in the choice or suitability of any new buyer.
SBC has made budgetary provision in 2010/11 of £2million for road and infrastructure improvements around the airport – we are told that it is designed to benefit the community and not the airport.

So, Regional Airports Ltd obtained the lease for nothing, got the Council to pay (and they remain liable to pay) for the infrastructure repairs and were able to sell their interest on for all of a reported £21 million to a major freight operator with no possibility of Council censure. The tail seems to have wagged the dog.

Nigel was a director of SBC’s own airport holding company (Southend Borough Council Airport Ltd.) at the time of privatisation in 1994 but I have absolutely no idea whether he had any part to play in the construction of the lease or the vetting of it prior to issue.

Residents must now get to grips with the fact of expansion with Stobart at the helm whether the extension is built or not. But SBC has at least a moral responsibility to limit the damage done when opening the Pandora’s Box of privatisation. When that meeting of the full Council is held and, if the Review fails, operational revisions should include a total ban on night flights as a first priority.. Our airport will protest but London City and Southampton airports exist commercially without them. So should we.

Tags:
Posted in Leigh Times, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Airports hit easy targets

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

From: Daphne C. Jopson (Miss), Beach Avenue, Leigh

Why are Stansted and Southend airports targeting handicapped people? Because they are easy targets, vulnerable and less likely to respond to aggressiveness?

The 75 year-old local man with walking and balancing problems (Letters, Leigh Times, Sept 221) was subjected to embarrassing and humiliating treatment at Southend Airport.

So also was a 50-plus year-old lady at Stansted airport.

Having had a hip replacement she regularly set off security alarms at airports. On her last visit to Stansted she was told that she would have to have a ‘personal’, which was shouted across to another female employee.

She was taken into a side room and told that they needed to see her operation scars and that she had to take off her trousers and tights.

To say that she felt humiliated, angry and disgusted was putting it mildly.

“When asked why ‘I, a female in my 40s, born and bred in Britain was being subjected to this, I was told it was an experiment that they were doing to determine what would be hidden in the body.

“I was subjected to a very thorough body search and had to have the security visor put all over my body again – all unnecessary. I emerged from that room incensed and was told I could complain on the website.

“One of the women who carried out the search told me she hoped I would complain because the airport staff were embarrassed about the new procedure. So I did – and received no reply except the usual cursory ‘thank you for your comments.’

“People who travel through Stansted should be aware of this ‘experiment’, it’s deeply upsetting to have it thrust on once you’re there.”

Both are English. Are there not more likely terrorists?

Posted in Leigh Times, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Money could have been put to good use

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

From: Leigh resident PF.

I am glad to hear that Renaissance Southend is closing down. It is a pity this did not happen before, think of the money we could have saved, and spent on building something on the end of the Pier.

We could now have a tree-lined High Street in Southend, a leisure swimming pool on the seafront, possibly an ice rink, and even making the Cliff slip into a nature garden of wild flowers.

We could still do all of this if we did not extend the airport or replace the library.

Posted in Leigh Times, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Council should be ashamed

Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010

THE shrubbery that borders the fence line to the south of St Laurence Park has been savaged by workmen directed by Southend Borough Council, for reasons known only to themselves.

This can only be described as an act of arboreal vandalism, the destruction of something beautiful and, what of the wildlife and their winter food in the hedgerows?

The fact that the open space of this parkland is left largely overgrown, receiving little or no attention throughout the year, makes one wonder if the ulterior motive of keeping it unkempt and uncared for is to promote the idea of an area of low amenity value, so its value as green belt land is kept deliberately low.

One might ask if this ‘vandalism’ is really necessary in order to maintain the boundary.

What, then, of the footpath that links Eastwoodbury Lane and North Crescent? There has been no attempt to trim, maintain or look after this during the year.

It is also a disgrace and people who wish to use it may well struggle and do. How come this has not been attended to? Is this to give the impression the footpath is not used? Well it is!

Shame on you, Southend Council, if this is how you get around re-designating the green belt for the purpose of driving a road through it.

How can it be called parkland when it resembles waste land?

Mr G E Harvey
North Crescent, Prittlewell

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »