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

Dear Mr Williams,

Please provide a response to our letter of the 18th September related to Southend Airport.

Additionally we enquire as follows-

(1) Your recently announced agreement on airport control proposals

(a) Please give reasons for supposing that the raft of exceptions to the monthly night flying cap of 120 will not render the cap meaningless in permitting a variety of aircraft to fly without restriction.

We refer in particular to QC (Quota Count) exempted aircraft which can be both turbo and jet propelled in emitting a certified (unmeasured in operation) EPNdb of 86 for each aircraft.

Whilst marginally quieter, that advantage will be entirely lost with no cap on numbers- the major weakness found in a purely noise oriented quota count system.

These movements will be interlinked with the noise generated by the other rather louder fixed and rotary craft contained both within the cap and without as the other exceptions to it.

We are also unable to reconcile an average of 3 passenger flights a night in the 30 minutes immediately after the commencement of night flying restrictions with the claim that those restrictions are in place at 23.00 hrs.

This indicates a potentially worse situation than contained in the existing lease arrangements and you seem prepared to risk granting the extension permission on the strength of it being ‘this or nothing’.

We ask for your detailed argument in allaying our fears as above.

Please do not refer us to the airport for an explanation since, as residents, we are entitled to expect that appropriate independent research was conducted by yourselves before reaching any such agreement in terms of your duty of care.

(b) A major benefit claimed for residents in the heavily congested areas of Eastwood and Leigh is the preferential noise routing to the north east wherever safety permits.

We are entirely surprised that this measure has received the approval of a majority of Rochford Councillors and request your confirmation that this is the case.

(2) Conduct of the JAAP

We understand that the Development Control Committee will be authorised to meet to consider the application for the runway extension on the 11th January 2010 therefore isolating the extension from the JAAP process.

This Plan was conceived within the statutory Local Development Framework, always referenced the airport extension, related policy was provided within the preferred options document and the community never given to doubt that justification of Council actions would be tested at an ultimate independent and comprehensive public examination.

We give our reasons as follows since we are a group campaigning against the runway extension and our correspondence with you is (and has been) in that context.

(1) our letter to you of the 18th April 2009 at item (3) referred to the reasons given for the 2003 planning refusal and itemised the contravened policies in particular BE7 and B1W9.

Your related response to both dated 18th May 2009 (item 3 (c) and (d)) confirmed that ‘policies within the JAAP are likely to supersede this in due course, subject to a decision by an independent government inspector.

(2) Your letter of the 13th May (item 1 –Environmental Impact Assessment) referred us to policy LS7 ‘Operation of new runway ‘ which states that planning permission for the new runway will be supported subject to conditions on (amongst other things) ….the operation of cargo flights outside the hours specified….will be controlled by an agreed noise quota……As cargo and freight movements are contained within policy it is possible they will be raised as a matter to be debated at an Examination in Public, nevertheless,this is a decision which will be made by the independent planning inspector based on representations received and other supporting evidence.

This letter went on to explain Town and Country planning regulations at item (2) ‘the conduct of the JAAP’.

Under regulation 30 the development plan document is submitted to the Secretary of State (post phase 3) and two statements will be produced and be made public setting out the following:

First Statement

1. which bodies and persons the LPA invited to make representations under regulation 25 or 26
2. how those bodies were invited under either of those regulations
3. a summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to either regulation
4. how any representations made pursuant to either of those regulations have been taken into account

We think the above sufficient to make the point that to have subtracted the extension (surely a ‘main’ issue) from the statement at this juncture would make a total mockery of (1) to (4) above.

Should you wish for further illustrations to support our original confidence that the Plan would be examined intact then we can arrange to provide them.

Unless the Government Office for the East of England ‘calls-in’ the application there will have been no independent public test of soundness of the proposal and the majority of consultation objections from both phases ignored (the second is not even published in summary form as yet).

We therefore ask if you will initiate your own full and immediate public enquiry to assist the Development Control Commiittee in appreciating the entire dimension of argument before reaching any conclusion.

This would also alleviate the undoubted impatience displayed by the operators in submitting their application now.

We seek your advices on all matters raised.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)