Archive for the ‘Local Government’ Category

How not to vote

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

We want to provide information that helps you decide who to vote for, not decide for you. On this page, we tell you who not to vote for based on the assumption that SAEN supporters would not want to vote for someone who supports the runway extension and expansion of Southend Airport.

Details of the elections including the Statements as to Persons Nominated are available on the Southend Borough Council website and the Rochford District Council website.

See TheyWorkForYou.com for the results of the nationwide survey they conducted. The candidates’ responses to the question on Southend Airport included in the local sections for the two constituencies are included below. To date, only Terry Phillips, Barry Bolton, Tom Flynn, Kevin Bonavia, James Moyies and Geoff Strobridge have responded.

Tory Central Office has apparently issued a cut-and-paste statement rejecting the survey for their candidates to use, saying that it can’t “capture the nuances of party policies”.

We leave you to form your own opinions of candidates who can’t be bothered to answer their electors’ questions.

General Election

Southend West

  • David Anthony Andrew Amess – Conservative
    Wanted Public Inquiry into runway extension; wants safeguards for residents. Has not mentioned the airport in his election leaflet.
  • Peter Welch – Liberal Democrat
    Opposes runway extension
  • Tom Flynn – Labour
    Supports runway extension and says in TheyWorkForYou survey: “I have publicly supported expansion in order to boost the Southend economy – but only if there are no night flights and the necessary improvements to infrastructure (roads etc) are undertaken”
  • Barry George Bolton – Green Party
    Opposes all airport expansion. In the TheyWorkForYou survey, he says: “This plan will blight homes in Southend and bring little benefit. More planes from bigger airports is not a good way to manage air travel and its many problems”
  • Dr Vel – Independent
    Unknown
  • Garry Lee Cockrill – UKIP
    Unknown
  • Tony Gladwin – BNP
    Unknown
  • Terry Phillips – English Democrats
    Supports runway extension and says in TheyWorkForYou survey: “I believe that the airport will bring industry to southend. My only concern is the NIGHT flights. This will need the same restrictions as in place at london city airport. then it will work”

Rochford & Southend East

  • James Duddridge – Conservative
    Supports runway extension, describing it as “a golden opportunity for Rochford and Southend”. Says “he will continue to fight hard for the urgent completion of the project”.
  • Graham Edwin Longley – Liberal Democrat
    Wanted more scrutiny of decision but supports runway extension
  • Kevin Andrew Martin Bonavia – Labour
    Supports runway extension. Labour haven’t even mentioned the airport on their election leaflets! * In response to the TheyWorkForYou survey, he says “Southend Aiport’s development will help bring more jobs and indirectly support local businesses. But there should be no night flights as per other airports its size.”
  • Andrew John Vaughan – Green Party
    Opposes all airport expansion
  • Anthony Brian Chytry – Independent
    Called for referendum on airport; hasn’t made his own views known
  • James William Moyies – UKIP
    Supports the runway extension.
  • Geoff Strobridge – BNP
    Claims neutrality and says – this is a direct quote from his survey response for TheyWorkForYou – “The decision has already been made, so we are buggerd! We got to do the best we can, because it’s going to happen.”

Local Election

The official Statement of Persons Nominated is available on the Southend Borough Council website. Further details of the local elections will be available on this page shortly.

Development Control Committee

Below is shown the way members of the DCC voted in January. Names in italics are those councillors who are up for re-election.

Voted for runway extension:

  • Brian KellyConservative
  • Daphne White – Conservative
  • Elizabeth Day – Conservative
  • Ann Robertson – Conservative
  • Gwen Horrigan – Conservative
  • Richard Brown – Conservative
  • Jonathan Garston – Conservative
  • Roger HadleyConservative
  • Stephen Habermel – Conservative
  • Ron Woodley – Independent
  • Mike Assenheim – Independent
  • Mike RoystonLabour
  • David Norman – Labour
  • Ted LewinLiberal Democrat

Voted against runway extension:

  • Barry GodwinLiberal Democrat
  • Jim Clinkscales – Liberal Democrat
  • Mike GrimwadeLiberal Democrat

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that you can’t vote Conservative, Labour or for Ted Lewin in the local elections.

On the subject of Mr Lewin, a local resident has been in touch to share his door-to-door canvassing patter:

We had a very interesting conversation with Ted Lewin last night on our doorstep. We told him how disappointed and let down we were that he had voted yes to the airport expansion at the planning meeting. Ted’s answer was it’s better than having a Gypsy site or a Camp for Illegal Immigrants there, which he implied were the other options open to us if the airport didn’t go ahead!

As the airport has a 150-year lease as an airport, it seems unlikely that it will become a Gypsy site or camp for illegal immigrants any time before the year 2144.


If there are any errors in the above, electoral candidates are welcome to contact election@saen.org.uk with corrections. Anyone with a copy of election literature that spells out a candidate’s position on the airport, please scan it and send it to the same address.

Planning Dept Report now available

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

The report by Council Officers has now been published and is available on the Southend Council website.

SAEN’s analysis to follow…

Errors in Planning Dept’s handling of the planning application

Monday, January 11th, 2010

The following is an edited version of a letter sent to Dean Hermitage of Southend Borough Council Planning Department and Andrew Edwards, a member of the GO East Planning Casework Team. Names of respondents have been removed for publication on the web.

Having viewed the Planning Application comments files this morning we would like to draw a number of worrying errors to your attention. There may well be others that we have not spotted as we didn’t have time to review every single letter. However, we believe that the errors we have found raise serious concerns about the way this planning application has been handled by your department and that the figures you have given for the number of objections and letters of support may well be inaccurate.

In the opinion of the SAEN committee, the issues detailed below seriously call into question Southend Council’s competence in handling this case and we most strongly urge the Government Office for the East of England to call this application in to enable proper scrutiny at a Public Inquiry.

1. The “Null Response” file

We asked for clarification on what “Null Response” means and were told that you had said that it was where a letter didn’t contain a full name and address. The file labelled “Null Response” apparently contained only letters of objection, some of which, granted, did not have an address given, but most of which *did* have a full name and address. The very first letter in that file had a full name and address, so it is difficult to see how this mistake could have been made.

Please explain why this file was labelled as “Null Response” when that is not what it contained.

2. The “No Objection” files

The files we were presented with had post-it notes attached to them which read either “Objection”, “No Objection” or “Null Response”. However, the figures you have given us break the responses down into “Objections”, “Supporting”, “No objections” and “Neutral”. Can you please explain how you decided which category a response fell into where it was not specifically marked as a letter of objection or support and why “Supporting” and “No objections” are mixed in the filing?

3. Null Responses in the “No Objection” files

We found a great many cases where people supporting or “not objecting” to the application did not supply a complete address but their letters were filed in the “No Objection” folders.

[9 names cited]

Why were these not filed in the “Null Response” folder and how can we be sure that they were not counted towards the “No Objection” or “Supporting” totals?

4. Objections filed as Support

We have found a number of specific examples where letters of objection have been filed as letters of support.

[6 names cited]

Some of these started by saying such things as “I support Southend Airport, but I do not support the extension of the runway.” These can therefore only be counted as objections to the planning application, which is specifically concerned with the extension of the runway. I recall Barbara Clark’s letter, which was handwritten, said “LETTER OF OBJECTION” at the top. Why were they filed as letters of support?

5. Double counting

We saw several examples of email messages in the “No Objection” file that had been printed twice and were in different parts of the file. It was obvious that they were the same message as they had the same time stamp and were identical.

[2 names cited]

How do we know that these have not been counted twice? Why were systems not put in place to ensure that duplication of this nature was not possible?

6. Comments from outside the area

I distinctly recall that when handling comments on the Priory Crescent scheme, the Council divided them up into comments from Southend residents and those outside the borough. Has this been done with the comments on this planning application? If so, please supply these figures. If not, why not? It was obvious from looking through the files that a large proportion of the comments of support came from outside the area, with conspicuously large contributions from Warrington and Cumbria. While some letters of objection came from outside the area, it was clearly a smaller proportion.

Given that the Development Control Committee meets on Wednesday next week, you will appreciate that a prompt response is required.

I’ll not be brainwashed over airport decision

Monday, January 4th, 2010

I object to being called a “stooge” by Mike Hansford (Dec 18).

I am one of the 17 members of Southend Council’s development control committee who will make a decision on the airport.

My decision will be made on the planning application and the data submitted with it. I will consider this alongside the various planning control policies and guidance documents that Southend Council has.

I will, of course, take into consideration the many emails, letters and phone calls that I have received from both objectors and supporters of this application.

My answer to these people has been the same – I have noted their views, but am unable to comment as to my own persuasion.

The training I have received over the years is from external agencies as well as internal.

There is no brainwashing.

I will make my own decision based on facts.

It is a pity that, although Mr Hansford is entitled to his opinion, it would be better to be based on facts, not ignorance.

Mike Grimwade
Councillor, Prittlewell Ward
Eastwood Old Road

Rochford Council supports expansion, probably

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Rochford District Council’s Development Control Committee met this evening to consider their response to the planning application to extend the runway at Southend Airport. The planning application has been submitted to Southend Borough Council as the land affected is in their jurisdiction, but Rochford District Council is a consultee as the decision affects residents of Rochford too.

Rochford Council was, it seems, anticipating trouble as there was a police presence at the venue. By the time your correspondent arrived, the meeting hall was already packed and so the remaining members of the public, of which there were over thirty, had to brave the cold and listen to the meeting through a loudspeaker outside the building. A steward providing copies of the documentation estimated that there were 70-100 members of the public present inside the meeting.

From outside the meeting, we were left lacking a number of significant pieces of information, most notably the results of the vote which was conducted by a show of hands only. Members of the public outside the meeting were not given copies of the maps being discussed.

Hopefully, someone who was inside the meeting room can furnish us with more details so that these can be added.

No doubt, minutes of the meeting will be available in due course on the Rochford District Council website.

Airport Tower

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

COUNCILLORS were due to discuss plans to build a new control tower building at Southend Airport – despite not needing planning permission.

Rochford District Council’s development committee met yesterday (Wednesday) to discuss the plans. However, the proposal did not constitute a planning application as owner, Eddie Stobart, has the ‘benefit of permitted development rights’.

Southend Airport submitted the application for the 27m high tower because its current 50-year-old facility has reached the end of its life.

Night flights and noise

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Dear Councillor,

I am writing to you as a member of the Development Control Committee with my thoughts on two topics; night flights and noise from aircraft.

The current limit on night flights is 915 per month, and we are told that IF the extension is allowed to go ahead the figure will drop to 120 per month. This figure does not mention what type of aircraft we can expect to hear, whether they will be in a regular pattern, or whether aircraft which register below a certain number of decibels will be included in this number or simply added to it. Also, when London City Airport is closed for fog, or from sheer weight of numbers of flights, Southend airport will be used, will the airport have to say “Sorry, we have used out Quota – go and land somewhere else!” or will we in fact have more than the quota landing here?

It seems also as if the Airport and Stobart want to sound as if they are doing us a favour by ‘reducing’ the number to 120 when that is far more than are currently flying at night!

Southampton Airport has 10 night flights each month, and London City none at all as far as I can ascertain. If we are to model ourselves on Southampton, why should we not have the same controls as they have, and if London City doesn’t need night flights because there are already plenty of night flights operating from Heathrow and Stansted to cater for people from this area, via the excellent X30 coach service, then why should be having night flights at all.

Furthermore, if people are not travelling at night, then the flights will either be for Maintenance and repair or for cargo. Since we have Mr A Welch’s word that the Stobart Company is not interested in extending their cargo base here, then that only leaves maintenance planes which surely are able to fly in during daylight hours, so I repeat, why 120 night flights per month?

Remember, your decision will not only affect those living under the flight path in Leigh and Southend, but those in Rochford as well, since there is a move to direct as many flights as possible in the other direction to the one generally used at present.

My second point is the noise from aircraft during the day. At present, this is fairly low-key compared to the amount of noise generated in the past, particularly during the Sixties and Eighties. I must begin by saying that at that time, most people were used to the sound of planes locally and did not realise the potential impact of continual noise on health and well-being. If I may quote from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ‘Postnote’ (June, 2003)

  1. current aircraft noise can affect the quality of life of half a million people living close to UK airports
  2. increases in air traffic could outstrip technological progress in making individual flights quieter and so worsen the noise climate around many of the UK’s airports over the next thirty years.
  3. As a result, more people could be affected by sleep disturbance, annoyance and possible health effects.
  4. Aircraft noise could constrain airport expansion unless substantial noise reductions are made.

Noise studies have been made and substantiated. Children at Blenheim School have their lessons constantly interrupted by the noise of planes at present, as the school, with its 450 pupils lies directly under the flight path. They no doubt live close to the school and their sleep pattern is directed by the night flights. I know from experience that it can be a difficult school to teach in – could the reason be that these children are stressed by outside influences as well as having to cope with the National Curriculum?

And yet, the only noise study that the airport has undertaken has been simulated by a computer, generating an estimate. There is no such thing as a ‘quiet’ aeroplane, and we stand to be bombarded by night and day.
Much has been said about people living under the flight path from choice, but as a Councillor, perhaps you might like to find out how many Council properties lie under the flight path at Southend or Rochford. People who have no choice about where they live will have been directed to these areas, where perhaps others would choose NOT to live.

Many of you on the Development Committee have chosen to live in Thorpe Bay and Shoeburyness, some distance from the airport and its problems. Perhaps if Boris Island gets under weigh, you too will be facing the problems of noise from aircraft and night flights with no restrictions. Will you choose to move house then?

Those who do hear the planes flying over their houses are not impressed by the idea that during peak times, there could be a flight every seven-and-a-half minutes, be it small noisy Cessna, maintenance flight or commercial flight.

Those who have moved here in the last fifteen years have only ever known a small quantity of flights, and those of us who have lived here for a long time deplore the idea of having to move because the noise makes life intolerable.

Remember, your decision will not only affect those living under the flight path in Leigh and Southend, but those in Rochford as well, some thirty thousand houses, with occupation in excess of 75,000 people. Is this something you want to be responsible for, or do you feel that the Government should call the application in…?

Sincerely Yours

Kiti Theobald

Objection to Councillors

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

Dear Councillor

We wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposals to expand Southend Airport and extend the runway.

We would like to you respond to this letter, acknowledging that you have received this letter as an objection.

The reasons for our objections are as follows:

We believe that any expansion to the airport site will involve unnecessary alterations to various local amenities and living space, bringing unpleasant consequences to the people living in this town – in particular to those of us who live near the airport.

Unpleasant consequences caused by any expansion to the airport:

  • Increase in air pollution from the increased air traffic.
  • Increased volume of traffic on roads that are already very busy, particularly during the rush hour times.
  • Research has shown that only 6% of people use public transport to travel to airports, so we do not believe that the installation of an additional railway station at the airport will be of any benefit in reducing the amount of increased traffic to and from the airport.

Other Objections:

  • We particularly object to the proposed ‘closure’ or diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane as this affects us personally:
    1. Closure or diversion of this road will deprive us of easy access to St. Laurence’s Church that currently, is within walking distance. Closure or diversion of this road will make it difficult for us to attend religious services being offered at this church and will result in increased use of the car as we continue to travel to and from the church.
    2. Closure or diversion of this road will also prevent us using the current easy access route through to our friends and relatives who live in Rayleigh, Hockley etc.
  • We also strongly object to the loss of playing fields and park recreational areas in Eastwoodbury Lane to accommodate the expansion of the runway and a car park to provide a park and ride scheme for the airport.

    We fail to understand why, when the town is so full of traffic, our local park and playing fields have to be destroyed to create a ‘Park and Ride’ scheme for the sole purpose of enabling visitors to the town just to travel the airport.

    On that note, why cannot the whole town have a park and ride scheme?
    If the airport should close, the site of the airport could be used to provide sufficient space to allow for an effective park and ride scheme that would benefit the whole town.

    This would be better than just providing a park and ride scheme for people to use the airport, when these same people would not be spending any time (or money) in the town.

  • The county of Essex already has a very big airport – Stansted. Anyone living beyond a ten mile radius outside of Southend finds that it is just as easy to travel to Stansted.
  • People living in Southend also confirm that Stansted Airport is very easy for them to travel to.
  • We do not believe that in the present financial climate that this is the right time to consider expanding an airport for passengers.
  • But we do believe that the intention is to provide facilities to increase the amount of freight that can be flown in and we are aware that at the present time there are no restrictions on night flights carrying freight. We are also aware that older planes are used for transporting freight by air. These older planes are noisier than modern passenger jets, creating more noise and emitting unpleasant fuel emissions over the town.
  • If these proposals go ahead, it will certainly keep people from wanting to work or live within Southend. It is already very difficult trying to get in or out of Southend as well as trying to move around the town by car or bus, due to the amount of traffic at present; the expansion of the airport will exacerbate this situation.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr. & Mrs. Shardlow

Draft Control Measures

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

As noted recently in the local media, Southend Council and the Airport have negotiated a set of control measures on aircraft landing at and departing from London Southend Airport.

This document can be found on Rochford District Council’s website at:

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/rdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/aiport_control_measures.pdf

SAEN’s analysis of this document will appear here soon.

Planning Notice

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

We now have a copy of the Notice of Application for Planning Permission which a select few residents have received. On the basis that “It may be that other occupiers/owners of your property or neighbours are unaware of the proposal” and that Andrew Meddle invites us to “show them this notice”, it is reproduced below.

To comment, either visit http://saen.org.uk/planningapp or email planningregistrationteam@southend.gov.uk, quoting application number SOS/09/01960/FULM.

notice-p1
notice-p2