Archive for the ‘Local Government’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Letter to Essex County Council

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

Dear Sir,

Re: Southend Airport Planning Application No. SOS/09/01960/FULM

You are aware that the above planning application was submitted 12th
October 2009 to extend the Southend Airport runway. The only
reference to any road works is to divert Eastwoodbury Lane.

I hope that the Essex County Council are going to oppose the
application as this development cannot be considered in isolation to
the rest of the county. It will seriously affect all roads leading
in and out of Southend including residential roads.

Further development of the airport may well be an attractive project
in generating more employment and the potential to handle up to 2
million passengers a year. But it is ridiculous to consider this
application without first constructing a new arterial road into the
Southend conurbation. The present arterial roads, A13 and A127,
have now grossly exceeded their designed capacities and are
frequently grid locked. If the only road improvement considered
under this planning application is the realignment of Eastwoodbury
Lane it must be concluded that there is a complete lack of
understanding of traffic movements entering and leaving Southend.

Proposals for a new arterial road have been raised for over 40
years. It appears that it is now time to resurrect the old proposal
to construct a new road north of Eastwood. This will require a
major road scheme and would require a tunnel under Rayleigh and
Rochford and would no doubt need EU money. If Zell am See, Austria,
can construct an extensive tunnel under its town in rock it is not
beyond our civil engineers to do similar in Essex clay. It is only
a question of cost and if the extension of the Airport is that
important then the money should not be an issue.

Common sense would dictate that this planning application must be
rejected until there has been a major improvement to the road
infrastructure and not some woolly compromise that it will have to
be looked at in the future.

Kind regards,

Richard D’Ath

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

Release Phase 2 analysis!

Sunday, October 18th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

18th October, 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr Scrutton,

I am recently in receipt of information that the latest stage of the JAAP Consultation elicited about ten thousand responses before the close of the response period. I have no doubt that the response analysis has by now been completed, and I am aware that you have no wish to release the full analysis until such time as it suits your purposes to do so.

There is no doubt that most of those ten thousand responses will have declared support or objection to the runway extension. For Rochford District Council to continue to withhold the analysis of the responses whilst the planning application deadline barely leaves time for another round of objections to be heard is nothing short of disgraceful.

There is a great deal of unrest among people who live below the flight path in the Southend area, and increasing unrest amongst the population of Rochford upon reading that more flights are intended to be directed over Rochford if weather permits.

The country has recently lost faith in Government ministers over issues of secrecy and is likely to lose faith in its local council if it suspects that similar things are happening at the town hall, and are likely to bear all this in mind during next year’s local and governmental elections.

SAEN would like you to reconsider your approach to holding back on the release of JAAP response analysis, so that we can all move forward in an open and frank manner. We have written to both MPS to outline the current situation, and subsequent press releases may well depend upon your response to this letter. I urge your immediate attention to this matter,

Yours sincerely

Kiti Theobald (chairman)

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

Continued refusal to publish Phase 2 results

Thursday, October 8th, 2009
Directorate of External Services
Head of Planning & Transportation
Shaun Scrutton, BSc(Hons), Dip TP,
MRTPI, IHBC, MBA, MCMI

Ask for: Shaun Scrutton Ext: 3400
Direct Dial: 01702 318 100
Email: shaun.scrutton@rochford.gov.uk

My Ref: SS/JAAP

Rochford
District Council

Ms K Theobold
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend on Sea MLO
Short Street
Southend on Sea
Essex SS1 1AA

8 October 2009

Dear Ms Theobald

London Southend Airport & Environs JAAP

I refer to your letter of 4 September 2009 and must apologise for delaying my response.

  1. Archaeological investigations
    The archaeological report is part of the public record and you can obtain a copy when it is available.
  2. Existing S106 agreement
    1. I note the point you make about the trigger point for noise monitoring in the S106 agreement related to the consent for the new terminal building and railway station.

      Please find attached a copy of the press release issued on 7 October that sets out new controls to be applied to the operation of the airport, in the first instance through revisions to the lease with Southend Council. You will note that these controls will be augmented as appropriate by further controls linked to the town and country planning process.

    2. A new set of controls has now been agreed with the airport operator, as outlined in the press release.

      Whilst I cannot be specific at this stage, it is likely that further controls may be applied as appropriate and specific to any applications submitted in the future. The controls now agreed will be built into the final JAAP submission.

    3. In my previous letter I did not rule out a review of the S106, but indicated that an immediate review, as you requested, would not be carried out.
  3. S106 review meeting
    I am not able to provide you with details of when a review of the S106 might be carried out. As I have indicated, the new controls provide for a significant change in the future operation of the airport. The Council will keep the situation under review.
  4. Preferred Option consultation responses
    I note the comments you make about the consultation, but I am not prepared to change the conclusion I reached in response to your original request for information about the consultations.

    The joint Councils are not concealing any information about the consultation responses – all are available to view through the website. [This is not true. Only responses submitted online are available via the website.] However, the analysis of the responses will be published at a later date along with the submission version of the JAAP.

    On that basis, I reiterate my previous decision that the information is exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act as it is information that is reasonably accessible by other means. [Again, untrue for the reason above. The Information Commissioner's Office asked the council to release a summary of results a few weeks later.] All the responses received to the consultation on the JAAP Preferred Options document.

    www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/policy/local_development_framework/london_southend_airport.aspx

    The joint Councils will provide a detailed analysis of the responses received and explain how these will be taken into account in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.

    Your request asks the Council to undertake work to prepare a statistical breakdown of the responses received in advance of the publication of a full report on the consultations. I also refuse this request under the provisions of section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. The reason for refusing your request under section 22 is that it is important that a proper assessment, review and analysis of the consultation responses is prepared and published in full at the next stage in the plan making process. It is anticipated the submission version of the JAAP will be published later in 2009. In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

  5. Environmental Protection Act
    It is my understanding that airports are exempt form the provisions of the EPA and that aircraft noise is a matter dealt with by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Please let me know if I can provide any further advice on these matters.

Yours sincerely

Shaun Scrutton
Head of Planning & Transportation

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

Shaun Scrutton: Refusal to publish consultation results and other matters

Monday, August 24th, 2009
Directorate of External Services
Head of Planning & Transportation
Shaun Scrutton, BSc(Hons), Dip TP,
MRTPI, IHBC, MBA, MCMI

Ask for: Shaun Scrutton Ext: 3400
Direct Dial: 01702 318 100
Email: shaun.scrutton@rochford.gov.uk

My Ref: SS/JAAP

Rochford
District Council

Ms K Theobold
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend on Sea MLO
Short Street
Southend on Sea
Essex SS1 1AA

24 August 2009

Dear Ms Theobold

London Southend Airport – Freedom of Information Request

I refer to your letter of 2 August seeking further information with regard to various matters related to London Southend Airport.

In the first instance, I would draw your attention to my letter of 2 July 2009, which provided a response to several letters including, those dated 17 April and 3 May 2009. I will provide further comments about those letters after dealing with the four issues raised in your letter dated 2 August.

  1. Freedom of Information Request (FOIA)
    As I said in my letter of 2 July, a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been prepared detailing the arrangements for archaeological monitoring and recording of the groundworks relating to the construction of the railway station. It is standard practice for the Council to issue a schedule of fees for copying of documents required under the FOIA, but in this instance I have waived the charge and enclosed a copy of the WSI. This is a publicly available document linked to the planning consent for the railway station and terminal building.

    At this point in time, I have no details of the investigations that have been carried out in the initial stages of the preparatory work for the construction of the station. I expect a copy of the final report to be provided to the Council once the groundworks are complete.

    I note your comments regarding the Council’s complaints procedure – please find attached details of the scheme. If you would like to make a formal complaint, please complete the form and return to the Council as directed.

  2. Section 106 Agreement
    This is a request for comments on the correct interpretation of the S106 agreement and is not a Freedom of Information Request.

    I understand that you have a copy of the S106 agreement related to the outline planning consent (reference 97/00526/OUT) granted on 19 July 1999. In your letter you ask for comments on the interpretation of Section 3.6 which relates to the requirement for the installation of a noise monitoring system once the airport reaches a total of 650,000 passengers per annum or 90,000 air traffic movements.

    I would draw your attention to section 2.1 of the S106; this provides a definition of the term ‘Airport’ as meaning ‘the commercial undertaking now operated from the said land’. That being the case, it is my view that the interpretation of section 3.6 is clear and a noise monitoring system will be required when the airport exceeds either of the two figures specified.

    Question 2a – this question is not a Freedom of Information request, but invites speculation/interpretation of draft policies LS2 and LS3. Any representations duly made during the recent plan consultation will be taken into account in the preparation of the submission plan.

    Question 2b – this question is not a Freedom of Information request, but invites speculation/interpretation of the JAAP, S106 agreement for the terminal and railway station and the airport lease (the responsibility of Southend Council).

    The conditions included in the planning consent for the terminal and railway station and provisions of the S106 (including the extract from the lease clause 4.23 (night flying) set out planning controls over the operation of the airport with the new terminal in operation.

    Question 2c – I am not certain that I have understood your request correctly. Therefore I should be grateful if you would rephrase your request in clearer terms. Once I have received your revised request I will provide a response within five working days. If you need assistance with this, please contact me on the above telephone number, or by email.

  3. S106 Review Meeting
    The comments and questions set out in section 3 of your letter do not constitute a Freedom of Information request, but seek information and interpretation of the contents of the S106 agreement.

    Question 3a – it is for Rochford District Council to determine whether there is a need or justification for any meetings with the signatories of the S106 agreement to carry out a review of its contents.

    Since there is no imminent prospect of the approved terminal commencing construction, the Council does not propose to devote resources to carrying out a review of the S106 agreement.

    Question 3b – this question is not applicable given my response to question 3a.

    Question 3c – this question is not applicable given my response to question 3a.

  4. JAAP Preferred Option – consultation results
    This is considered to be a request for information to be published under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The information sought is held by this Authority.
    This information is exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act as it is information that is reasonably accessible by other means. Namely, all responses received to the consultation on the JAAP preferred options document are available to view on the Council’s website at
    http://www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/policy/local_development_framework/london_southend_airport.aspx

    The joint Councils will provide a detailed analysis of the responses received and explain how these will be taken into account in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.

    Your request asks the Council to undertake work to prepare a statistical breakdown of the responses received in advance of the publication of a full report on the consultations. I also refuse this request under the provisions of section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. The reason for refusing your request under section 22 is that it is important that a proper assessment, review and analysis of the consultation responses is prepared and published in full at the next stage in the plan making process. It is anticipated the submission version of the JAAP will be published later in 2009. In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

That concludes my response to your letter of 2 August.

Following receipt of your letter, the Council contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office since no communication had been received regarding your complaint. I understand that an email was sent on 21 July, but this was not received and a copy was forwarded to the Council on 10 August 2009.

The Information Commissioner has requested you be provided with a response in relation to the contents of letters sent to the Council dated 17 April and 3 May 2009. In fact, my letter of 2 July referred to both these letters and it may be that you did not send a copy of that letter to the Commissioner’s office.

In any event, I set out below a full response to the matters raised in both letters. The majority of the questions in the letters do not relate to ‘recorded information’, but rather seek information/interpretation of published documents. I have clearly set out where a matter is considered to be related to recorded information and where it relates to questions.

Letter dated 17 April 2009

  1. Airport Lease
    This is not a Freedom of Information request.

    As I said in my letter of 2 July 2009, I am not prepared to comment on the contents of the lease. The S106 agreement includes an extract from the lease relating to night flying, but I see no reason to comment on this fact – the hours of operation specified are clear and do not require interpretation.

    You also ask about the use of the airport as a base for freight. The joint Councils will be considering in detail the concerns raised about cargo flights in the JAAP Preferred Options consultation.

  2. Section 106 Agreement
    The planning consent for the airport terminal and railway station and the S106 is recorded information and available to view at the Council’s offices as part of the planning register. However, notwithstanding my earlier point regarding the charging schedule for documents, I have enclosed a copy of both documents with this letter.

    For your information, there is only one S106 agreement.

    I have answered your question about arrangements for a review of the S106 agreement in my earlier comments to your letter of 2 August.

[No, we don't know where 3 is either. - SAEN Webmaster]

  1. Baseline of noise levels in JAAP Preferred Options
    The ten questions (a to j) in this section of your letter are not considered to be requests under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    1. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    2. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    3. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    4. An Environmental Impact Assessment is a document prepared in certain circumstances to accompany the submission of a planning application.
    5. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    6. This question is noted.
    7. This question is noted.
    8. This question is noted.
    9. This question is noted.
    10. This question is noted.
  2. Original Planning application SOS/03/00010/FUL
    This relates to a planning application submitted to Southend Borough Council. If you require a copy of the application or comments, you will need to contact that authority directly at the following address:

    Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Civic Centre, Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-Sea Essex SS2 6ER

    You also seek information/comments on various policies in the Southend Local Plan. Again, you will need to contact the Authority directly.

  3. Runway length and safety implications
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    You ask a specific question about the contents of the JAAP Preferred Options document and the requirements of the CAA. It is likely that further information will be included as background in the submission version of the JAAP, but the JAAP has no role in guiding or informing any decisions taken by the CAA as the responsible authority for licensing aerodromes.

  4. Compensation Issues
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
    The matters you raise will be considered in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.
  5. Pollution measurement
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
    Matters related to the measurement of air quality will be considered in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.
  6. Miscellaneous
    The report to the JAAP Forum is recorded information, and its release for consideration is under the Freedom of Information Act.

    7. The JAAP Forum meeting held on 19 May 2008 was not a public meeting and in principle the Council would take the view that it would be appropriate to apply an exemption to the release of the report. However, given the date of the meeting and the lack of any sensitive information in the report, a copy is attached for your information.

Letter dated 2 May 2009

  1. Condition 13 – Planning Application Ref 97/00526/OUT
    This request is to be considered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in respect of the publication of the WSI. This matter is dealt with earlier in the letter and I will not therefore comment further.

    As regards the application of conditions to future planning consents, please see comments in my letter of 2 July 2009.

  2. Construction of 06/24 runway

    3. This is not a matter to be considered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    I am not aware of any recorded information held by the Authority regarding the construction of the runway in the 1950s. As I said in my letter of 2 July 2009, if you would like information about the construction of the runway, you will need to contact the airport operating company.

I believe that deals with all the items in your various letters.

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review (as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this letter) by writing to:

Rochford District Council, Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW.
Or alternatively email: customer.care@rochford.gov.uk

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45 Website: www.ico.qov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

In any event a copy of this letter has been sent to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

Shaun Scrutton
Head of Planning & Transportation
Encs

  1. WSI detailing archaeological monitoring and recording of groundworks in relation to construction of the railway station.
  2. Rochford District Council’s Comments, Compliments and Complaints Customer Guide.
  3. Rochford District Council’s Comments, Compliments and Complaints Customer Feedback Form.
  4. Planning consent in relation the airport terminal and railway station (97/00526/OUT).
  5. S106 agreement in relation to planning consent (97/00526/OUT).
  6. Report by Shaun Scrutton to the London Southend Airport and Environs Action Plan Forum on 19 May 2008, titled London Southend Airport and Environs – Joint Area Action Plan DPD – Process.

cc Information Commissioner’s Office
Wyclffe House Water Lane Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | 4 Comments »

Sam Hollingworth: Results of JAAP Phase 2 please

Thursday, June 18th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

18th June 2009

Mr. Sam Hollingworth,
Planning Policy Department,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr Hollingworth,

Re: Southend Airport

We are writing to ask for a detailed numeric analysis of the total responses received to each of the various issues and options expressed in the second consultation phase to the Joint Area Action Plan and which closed on the 15th May 2009.

We understand that a summary analysis will be published by the end of June.

Please include reference to the number supporting, objecting and commenting within each possible response.

This information is requested under the Freedom of Information Act and we will be grateful for the full provision of it within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

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

John Williams: The JAAP conduct

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

17th June 2009

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

Dear Mr. Williams,

Further to our letter dated 6th June 2009 we request your advices on the following matters-

(1) The binding establishment of Airport Controls

We have been continually attempting to establish in various correspondence with both Councils as to how the current lax permissions relating to airport activity can be further constrained whether or not the high growth preferred option is adopted.

Our letter of the 31st March 2009 to SBC sought clarification of the confusion surrounding the existing Section 106 dated 19/7/1999 and the 1994 lease as the ‘entire fall back protection umbrella for residents’ should the extension plans be abandoned and a new Agreement not be obtained.

You advised us that your contingency plan was the JAAP itself since ‘….if adopted ,will include policies to control and regulate the operation of London Southend Airport regardless of whether or not a planning permission is made (sic) by London Southend Airport’.

In relation to the ‘fall-back’ you went on to confirm that …’the JAAP will fulfil this role’.

An alternative view is held by Mr. Hollingworth, Planning Policy Team Leader at Rochford District Council.

In his letter of 2nd April 2009 he states ‘The final version of the JAAP will contain policies which will be used to direct the content of any Section 106 agreements related to future planning permissions’.

(a) Perhaps you will explain this apparent contradiction.

We also promised to seek Counsels opinion on the review clause in the existing Section 106 which is enclosed for your information.

You conceded in your letter of the 18th May 2009 that ‘the S106 provides for a review but it does not require it’.
You will note that our barrister considers the interpretation contained in this letter to be mistaken.

The correct interpretation of the Agreement is that it requires a review by mutual consent every five years (although it obviously does not require that any changes be made as a result of such a review).

We have already been informed that SBC and RDC are joint sponsors of the JAAP and joint consultees on related planning matters.

(b) Please confirm that SBC and/or RDC will initiate discussions with all parties to the Agreement in the matter of a review and when.

We would of course expect such a meeting to be fully minuted and available as a matter of public record.

(2) The conduct of the JAAP

A further matter has arisen questioning a policy fundamental to the JAAP at LS1 which contends that ….’both Councils will support the growth of the airport to a capacity of up to 2 million passengers per annum as proposed in the Aviation White Paper and East of England Plan’.

We refer you to the consultation response from the East of England Regional Assembly (EERA)
and this question- Does the Plan reflect the role of the regions airports (RSS Policy-E7).

‘The JAAP does include the support and identified role of the airport contained in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper(ATWP). However, contrary to the JAAP Policy LS1 neither the ATWP nor the East of England Plan identifies growth at London Southend of up to two million passengers per annum (mppa) The two mppa figure was an assumption used in the demand and impact appraisal work and was based on the maximum use of the runways at the major airports and no new runway capacity.
Given that the ATWP supported new runways at Stansted and Heathrow the role for Southend that is supported was not for two mppa, but to meet local demand and the needs of business aviation. This is reflected in policy E7 and paragraph 4.31 of the East Of England Plan.
The Department for Transport does not include Southend in its Air Passenger Demand forecasts. The national modelling cannot verify whether there would be demand for services for this number of passengers. However providing rigorous environmental standards and sustainable surface access objectives are met , regional policy does support the expansion beyond the permitted maximum capacity*). The extension of the runway and new terminal are components of this growth.
EERA is concerned that the development of the preferred policy is being based on a yet to be agreed baseline noise assessment. Noise was a constraint identified by the 2002 SE Airports consultation document. Whilst the Governments preferred assessment of noise nuisance is the 57 dBAL level the Councils’ attention is drawn to the view of the Inspector reviewing the G1 Inquiry at Stansted that individual aircraft noise events and the number of such events are also important’.

*currently 500,000 ppa

We make the following observations-

  1. Your LS1 policy assertion is patently not founded in fact. At best it is founded on a misunderstanding of the given evidence base and at worst is a deliberate misrepresentation of it.
  2. The growth option originally envisaged and supported for Southend by both Government and the East of England Plan was never that now chosen by both Councils.
  3. EERA support for the extension even beyond 500,000 ppa is heavily qualified with major provisos concerning environmental and surface access issues.
  4. The interpretation of evidence supplied in identifying passenger demand at up to two mppa can only have been made at a local level since (a) a national forecast was never made available and (b) the EERA have made it clear that it was never their intention nor that of the Government White Paper to underpin such volumes.

    What remains unclear to us is how that interpretation was possible and then promoted as integral to the LS1 policy.

(3) The financial position at Southend Airport

In the matter of the Debenture for £405,000 your letter of the 18th May advised that SBC was entitled to retain the £405,00 plus accrued interest out of the sale proceeds (of the Warners Bridge site).

Please provide a categoric assurance that Southend Council was actually repaid the loan and interest.

We will pursue this further with the airport itself.

We await your advices on all matters raised. A copy of this letter and the stated enclosure will be supplied to Mr. Scrutton at RDC requesting his response where appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

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

Leigh Town Council: Statement to Airport meeting

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The following has been provided by Geoff Fulford of Leigh Town Council and is a summary of what he said at the meeting at Leigh Community Centre on 6th May.

Southend Airport JAAP
Statement to Airport meeting – 6th May 2009

  1. Leigh-on-Sea Town Council started with the Issues and Options consultation in June 2008.
    1. We invited Mr. Alastair Welch, Managing Director of Southend Airport and Mr. Mark Murphy from Southend Borough Council to address our Council’s Planning Committee, which they did.
    2. The Town Council considered the 4 options:
      1. Low Growth
      2. Medium Growth
      3. Medium Growth – Aviation Cluster
      4. High Growth
    3. These options were looked at on the following bases:
      1. Employment needs and supply, including requirements under the East of England Plan
      2. Housing needs and supply, including requirements under the East of England Plan
      3. Transport & Accessibility, private transport, trains and buses, particularly how the existing or proposed road structure could deal with increased traffic to meet the various options
      4. The environment impacts, particularly on the Green Belt, natural habitats and biodiversity and how they would be affected by the various options
      5. Recreational facilities
    4. We also considered the strategic role of the airport within Southend, Rochford and South Essex
    5. The various factors were all considered very carefully, and the Town Council opted for Option 1, Low Growth, and responded on that basis.
  2. Subsequently, we were notified of the Preferred Options consultation in February 2009.The Preferred Option from Rochford and Southend Councils was for high growth. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Town Council opposes many of the proposals in the Preferred Options document.

    The Town Council’s response is:

    1. That the runway should not be extended. This would be unnecessary under the Town Council’s preference for airport development, and would create noise and disturbance to residential areas in Leigh and in other places
    2. The passenger levels should not go up to 2 million per year, but have limited growth from the current 30,000 per year because of the impact on residential amenity, transport infrastructure and environment.
    3. That the airport should not be a driver for the local economy, it should, rather, have economic growth as a consequence of any growth, and that growth should be restricted to Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul of aeroplanes.
    4. To oppose high scale employment growth at the airport
      Particularly 99,000 sq met in the Saxon Business Park and 10,000 sq met on Nestuda Way, purportedly creating 5,450 jobs. The Town Council preferred 15,000 sq met increase and an increase of 620 new jobs. There was no evidence given or justification for the employment figures, nor how the jobs would be provided and their impact on transport, the environment and other social issues.
    5. The Town Council wanted clarification or specification of night flying. Policy TF1 includes restrictions of scheduled passenger flights from 6.30 a.m. to 11.00 p.m., but does not mention any restrictions on night flying of cargo aircraft. Although the consultation document says that ‘the airport will be used primarily for passengers’, we all know what Mr. Stobart’s business is based on, and there is no reference to restrictions on freight flights.
    6. In relation to travel, no details are given. There is a general statement improvement to the A127, integrating proposals to improve the functioning of the wider network and encouraging a modal shift. The Town Council would need specific action, such as:
      1. Special trains from London to the new Airport Railway Station (although this would create problems on sections of the line where there are no overtaking opportunities for the faster trains)
      2. A travel plan for airport staff and businesses.
      3. Park and Ride schemes to get passengers to the airport.
      4. High parking fees at the airport
      5. Improved local bus services
    7. The Town Council fundamentally opposes some of the proposed land use changes:
      1. Area iia, to the north of Aviation Way Business Park, currently primarily agricultural land and proposed for offices and light industry should not be changed
      2. Area iid currently playing pitches to the south of the Brickworks and proposed for offices and light industry should not be changed.
      3. Area xi, currently football pitches and agriculture south of Nestuda Way, proposed for a park and ride facility should not be changed.In relation to areas to the north of Aviation Way and the south of the Brickworks, the proposals would have a very negative impact on the environment and the amenity of the area.In relation to the land south of Nestuda Way, the proposals would again harm the environment, and a Park and Ride facility in this location would not benefit Southend because of the transport difficulties that there would be in getting to this location.
  3. Other Issues and Policy changes if the High Growth Option is chosen
    1. Policy E1 referring to a 50/50 split of employment between Rochford and Southend, the Town Council believes this is a guess to appease political imperatives of apparent fairness without any justification within the plan.
    2. Policy LS7 should state clearly that cargo flights have the same restrictive times as passenger flights and an ‘agreed noise quota’ should be specified. Residents under a flight path are not concerned whether a flight is for passengers or cargo
    3. The Preferred Options document does not mention ‘a quality hotel’, or a new control tower, both of which were in the Options and Issues document. What is happening in respect of these?
    4. There is a tendency within the document to be non-specific about numbers, make assumptions and to use ‘planning language’. This could be the way that the minds work of the people who write the document, or there could be more subtle reasons. We have referred earlier to agreed noise quotas, no stated restrictions on cargo flight times, integrating proposals to improve the functioning of the wider network and encouraging a modal shift. (We know what this means, but there is no indication of how it will be achieved). Expressions such as:
      1. to ‘provide internal solutions to movement and accessibility’ we don’t know what this means.
      2. ‘It is expected that the layout will include a number of eco-friendly business start-up units’ What is the basis for making this kind of statement?
      3. ‘considering controls on airport operations to ensure quality of life is maintained’ These controls should be imposed, not considered

      do not add to our understanding, or that of the public to what is being proposed.

Conclusion

There appears to be a split between those who favour the positive economic benefits of expanding the airport and those who favour the positive environmental benefits of restricting growth.

The Town Council considered both very seriously, and recognise the inherent dichotomy. After a long and well-argued debate, the Town Council finally came down on the side of low growth for environmental reasons, particularly in relation to noise, pollution and transport difficulties.

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

Shaun Scrutton: Still waiting for answers

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

3rd May 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

Our most recent letter to you was dated the 18th April 2009 to which we await your response.

We would now like to raise additional matters with you.

1. Condition 13 attaching to Planning Application 97/00526/OUT

This states that no development or preliminary ground works of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

This condition was imposed for the stated reasons of proper investigation and recording of the site located in an area where previous finds have been made.

In view of the recent commencement of work on the railway station we request that you provide us with copies of the referenced scheme of implementation and approval together with details of any investigation work actually carried out and by whom.

We also seek your confirmation that a similar condition would attach to any future application(s) in the context of a runway extension and/or hotel and that a comprehensive programme of archaeological investigation would pre-date the commencement of such works.

The preferred options document does not appear to reference this aspect of the Joint Plan.

2. Construction of the 06/24 runway

We are advised that the existing runway is not constructed from pave quality concrete, the material suitable for modern jet aircraft but from stabilised soil. As this material absorbs water the minimal steel reinforcement used in its construction will after some 50 years have rusted and seriously weakened it.

Copies of the original airport committee minutes originating in 1955 supporting these assertions can be supplied to you on request
With the speed and weight of modern aircraft considerably outstripping that of the originally intended users then the stability of the runway composition must be in doubt with allied safety implications.

We will be pleased to receive your advices on the matters raised above within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

CC Mr. R. Tinlin – CEO Southend Borough Council

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

Shaun Scrutton: Further requests for information

Saturday, April 18th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

18th April 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

We thank you for your letter dated 3rd April 2009 in reply to ours of the 24th March relating to developments at Southend Airport.

There is no certainly no wish on our part to adopt a confrontational approach with yourselves and our intention has been and remains simply a desire to secure information in relation to proposals which will have a profoundly adverse impact upon the lives of so many local people.

That is information that we are entitled to request and within a reasonable time frame on matters with which we have little expertise. To assume that all letters received by RDC that in any way relate to the JAAP are to be processed as a representation and thus not requiring a proper response appears to us to be a highly questionable policy requiring some re-examination.

It is also not unreasonable for us to believe that RDC would have put sufficient resources in place to contend with a situation consistent with its own policies and with many months in its planning.

However, we recognise that your staff are currently under pressure and we would not want to add to their burden by proceeding with a justifiable complaint provided that we are able to obtain full answers to our enquiries without undue delay.

Our letter of the 24th March requested copies of any RDC minutes which discussed the first phase representations as received and summarised by your own department since the majority of respondents did not support the preferred option strategy which emerged.

Again, we feel entitled to understand at this stage the reasons for the decision by RDC to ignore the majority view provided from invited representations and planning legislation appears to support that view for the reasons given.

We also request that you provide us with a copy of the report submitted by yourself to the London Southend Airport and Environs Action Plan Forum which met on the 19th May 2008 as minuted under item (6) ‘Timetable Issues’.

Other matters remaining from our letter of the 24th are in separate correspondence with Mr. Hollingworth.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

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

Shaun Scrutton: Request that he answers letters

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

24th March 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

We refer to our letter dated 10th March 2009 concerning the information requested in turn at our letter to Mr. Hollingworth dated 27th February 2009.

In the absence of any response we ask that (1) you review what has happened and (2) your complaints procedure be invoked.

Further to our representations on the few protections available to local residents we ask that you provide details of the restricted conditions on night flying attached to Rochford District Council planning permission 97/00526/OUT and a copy of the associated Section 106 Agreement dated 19/7/99.

We also remain very concerned as to whether any of the representations referred to in the recently published Summary Report relating to the front end consultation have actually been taken into account when reaching the announced high growth Preferred Option strategy.

In preparing the Issues and Options Document , the Town and Country Planning (Local Development (England ) Regulations 2004, SI No 2204 (LD Regs) Regulation 25 requires the LPA to consult specific consultation bodies and also to consider if appropriate to invite representations from residents or businesses in the area.

Under Reg 25 (as amended) if an LPA does invite representations it must take them into account and para. 1.5 of the Preferred Options Report says that ’feedback …..has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area’.
Councils have discretion in reaching their decisions but this must be exercised reasonably and reasons should be provided for their decisions.

In this interest, please provide copies of minutes of any Council meetings which discussed the representations.

We also seek your confirmation that the runway length is proposed at 1799 metres for a reason. Were it to be just one metre longer would the attaching safety margins be compromised and, if so, exactly what further safety requirements would be necessary?

All of the information requested to date is under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and your advices are accordingly awaited.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »