Archive for the ‘Yellow Advertiser’ Category

Try listening to your residents!

Wednesday, June 15th, 2011

MR Flewitt, like the new Mayor, Mr Norman, critisises those who have expressed concern about development decisions taken by the council (YA Letters, Jun 8).

Mr Norman accuses all, by insinuation, of being a bunch of whingers. Well, if they take poor decisions, they should not be surprised if people complain.

Take the example of all the complaints about the seafront cycle lane. Councillors pretended all was well despite all the protests; but now it is being given a new coloured surface to make it clearer to pedestrians and motorists.

How long will it be until Mr Flewitt has to apologies to the parents of a child killed on the Golden Mile due to the removal of all pedestrian crossings?

Let us also look at the new Southend swimming pool in Garon Park. We all complained that building a pool on the outskirts of town would mean only those with cars could get there.

Sure enough, virtually everyone arrives by car. The same will happen with the football stadium (if it is ever built). And don’t even get me started on the airport. The price of aviation fuel is going up so quickly we can forget about any long-term business and employment there.

If councillors don’t want to be criticised, they should try listening to local residents!

Vicky Page, Southend

We need airport answers

Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

AT every twist and turn of the airport debate, pro-expansion councillors have refused to tackle the points raised by objectors in an open an honest manner.

Time and again we have raised issued which have not been addressed.

The issue that drives me is, of course, the fear expressed by the world’s scientists that climate change will cause mass loss of human life.

Needless to say councillors refuse to explain how they can support their ‘Nottingham Declaration’, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, yet support aviation expansion.

David Amess MP has rightly taken justified concerns about night flights to the EU, pressing the argument that a short period of uninterrupted sleep is a fundamental human right.

Councillors claim they understand residents’ views but are powerless to demand a night ban at Southend. Yet it is my understanding that not one single Southend Cabinet Member has written to the Secretary of State to support a change in UK legislation in this regard.

Interestingly, it is the false claims made regarding employment growth which leave pro-expansion councillors floundering.

The truth is that aviation is a net drain on the UK economy. Tourists departing by aviation spend more money abroad than those arriving in the UK.

In 2008, the loss to the UK economy was £19.6bn. In 2009, this reduced (due to the reduction in the value of sterling) to £15.1bn. That is equivalent to a net loss of over 600,000 jobs in the UK.

You would think that any councillor seeking to create jobs in UK tourism would do everything possible to constrain aviation and encourage more UK residents to holiday at home. But no; some openly boast they will support flights to Ireland, spending a month’s disposable income that would otherwise have gone on social activities which sustain jobs here in Southend.

In light of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the pro-expansion brigade, it should come as no surprise that those opposed to aviation expansion will be working over the months and years ahead to reverse the damage done by this council’s irresponsible and irrational decision.

  1. Statistical data source: Office for National Statistics: The Pink Book (no data yet for 2010)
  2. Councillors flying to Ireland:- Those who nodded in support of Graham Longley when he announced at the full council meeting that it was ‘his duty’ to support the new flights to Ireland and would be flying to Ireland forthwith.

Jon Fuller, Southend

Public Inquiry into Airport Proposals

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

PLANS to extend Southend Airport’s runway could be delayed after the Government ordered a public inquiry.

The Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, has called for an investigation into the proposed closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, which was previously approved by Southend Council.

Airport bosses are looking to replace the road with a new link road, between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, to allow a 300m extension of the runway to go ahead.

Managing director Alastair Welch said staff were working to ensure the airport would still be operational for the 2012 Olympics.

He explained: “We have carefully planned the airport’s development and we are working with the appropriate authorities over a number of matters and can confirm that we remain on programme to complete the redevelopment in time for the Olympics.”

Southend Council is contributing to the cost of upgrading the specification of the new road. A spokesman said a public inquiry had been expected.

Head of planning and transport, Andrew Meddle, explained: “The Secretary of State’s decision to call a public inquiry into this matter is not unexpected.

“The airport operators carried out a public consultation over the proposals to close the old road and the Secretary of State is duty bound to call an enquiry in the event of a single objection.” [This is completely false. The consultation was organised by the Government Office for the North East (GO North East), not the Airport. SAEN has spoken to Neil Crass at the National Transport Casework Team at GO North East and confirmed that the decision to call a Public Inquiry was taken by his office and there was no duty to have an Inquiry merely because someone had objected. The fact that they have called a Public Inquiry is proof that there are serious unanswered questions to be answered about the proposals.]

The decision for a public inquiry came following objections from residents and campaign group, Stop Airport Expansion [Extension] Now.

Campaign group spokesman, Denis Walker, said: “This is the first time that the runway extension development will receive public scrutiny, so it’s excellent news for our campaign.

“We are confident that in the cold light of day, the justification for closing Eastwoodbury Lane to enable the runway extension doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

“The economic, environmental and social costs all outweigh any benefit and we look forward to the opportunity to explain this to a Government Inspector.”

You’re wrong about the airport, Mr Jarvis

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

I feel that I must respond to the vitriolic letter written by the embittered Lee Jarvis in last week’s Yellow Advertiser, but I shall try to do so without launching a personal attack.

Mr Jarvis accuses SAEN of telling lies, avoiding the truth, making things up and of not really being worried about the residents of Southend, and by implication, accuses Denis Walker of the same. Truth is stranger than fiction and SAEN members, committee and followers have kept a strict regard for the truth ever since their first meeting. People at that meeting were pleased that someone had volunteered to take on the case of the airport extension, that spokesmen would be dealing with the authorities, writing letters, organising leaflet drops, allocating finance to where it can do the most good, researching information, and above all, putting the residents of Southend first.

Sometimes lies go under the title of ‘spin’; the spin created by the Council and not contradicted by anyone at the airport would suggest that there ill be 6,700 jobs available when the airport expands. This is very far from the truth. Southampton, quoted by Mr Jarvis, has nearly 2 million passengers a year and ‘more than 1200(people) in 30 different companies of whom 200 are BAA Southampton employees’ (BAA Southampton).

I do understand the desperate need for jobs in Southend, as elsewhere, in this current economic climate, but this inflated figure is not to be believed. It includes the forecast for jobs to be created within the Saxon Business Park to be created as part of the Rochford/Southend Area Action Plan, of which the airport extension was only a part. Taking the planning application out of the Action Plan seems to have brought the rest of that particular initiative to a dead halt, as nothing more has been said about it for well over a year.

Mr Jarvis says that ‘most residents want the runway extension to happen’, but if this is so, where are all the letters of support that they could have sent to the Council when the proposition was first made? The letters sent to the Council during the Consultation were overwhelmingly against the extension, against the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, against the destruction of part of Eastwood Church wall and against the thought of having 52,500 flights a year as well as running night flights for freight planes.

SAEN is worried; worried about the apathy that a lot of residents have; worried about the effects of noise and air pollution on our resident’s physical and mental health; worried about the potential loss of a church which is older than Southend itself; worried about jamming up the two main approach roads of the Borough with extra traffic; worried that a project which could be short-lived in view of failing oil supplies will spell devastation for parts of the town; worried that 70,000 people under the flight path may actually be in danger from the threat of airport expansion.
I am sorry, Mr Jarvis, but you are wrong on all counts in your letter. Please check out the SAEN website at http://www.saen.org.uk.

Kiti Theobald
Westcliff

Has safety situation changed?

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011

TO those who belittle opponents to the Airport runway extension, I suggest they take a look at the following. It is from a Southend Airport document published in December 2004, when it was decided, for safety reasons, to ‘move’ St. Laurence’s Church on ‘rollerskates’ 110-metres north from where it stands. It makes interesting reading.

“Unless the church is moved, the Airport will not be able to meet today’s safety regulations without shortening the runway to such a point that commercial aircraft that already use the Airport would be unable to get in and out. The aircraft maintenance companies would then close their businesses and the Airport would be unable to continue in business.This is not a situation that the Airport has chosen for itself or would wish to be in. Meeting safety standards however must be in the interests of everyone including those who use the church today, so close to the runway.”

The full document can be found at www.southendairport.com/PDFs/Leaflet7.pdf for those still living in cloud-cuckoo-land. If any of them can answer my question – if the church was a safety hazzard then, why is the church wall the only hazard now? I’d love to hear from them.

Name and address supplied

“Airport expansion should happen”

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

DENIS Walker and SAEN have finally lost the last bit of credibility they had. They state that they know for a fact that the runway extension will not bring any economic benefits to the town.

Do they not realise there willl be hundreds of jobs created from the expansion when finished.

Maybe SAEN think that the airport will employ robots instead of humans to work in the new terminal, hotel and train station.

SAEN campaigners have obviously never stayed in a hotel before as they must think that the beds make themselves, and the food and drink magically appears in front of them, and people check themselves in.

Plus a lot of the contracts to help build the new terminal and control tower went to Essex-based companies as well.
Southampton Airport, for example, handles two million passengers a year and contributes £86million a year to the local economy.

Also, to give you an idea of how uneffected people will be by the extra flights. A friend of mine who works in the offices at the airport (not for the airport itself I might add) was chatting to an SAEN campaigner a while back.
He was moaning about how bad it would be with all the extra flights. This conversation took place the day after Southend Airport was used to take on lots of London City Airport’s diversions (due to bad weather). My friend then said to him ‘I bet you was not very happy about all the extra flights yesterday then’ and he replied by saying ‘What extra flights?’ He did not even know what had happened, and this was from a retired resident in Leigh, right under the flight path. I rest my case.

SAEN are just making information up to suit them, and avoiding the truth.

Denis Walker is from Friends of the Earth and is not really worried about the residents of Southend like he claims, and that is the real reason for his protests.

Most residents want the runway extension to happen, so please don’t listen to all of the lies from the small minority of SAEN supporters, trying to block what is the best thing to happen to this area in a very long time.

Lee Jarvis, Southend

Read Kiti Theobald’s response

The time to object is now

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Mr Christmas (YA 2nd February) is easily pleased. The fact that a councillor actually listened to his views and acted on them should not be exceptional. Also, for the record, it is Cory who organises Southend’s refuse collections, not the Council, and they do provide wheelie bins if requested.

He seems however to have placidly accepted that a road can be driven through St Laurence Park. It is this road that is the reason for the relocation of the children’s play area that concerns him. No mention of St Laurence Park was made in the JAAP to which residents were invited to respond. This ploy worked and the number mentioning it in their objection to airport expansion was reduced. The Council now attempts to use this in part to justify the road construction.

The purpose of the road is to enable the runway of Southend Airport to be extended, closing a section of Eastwoodbury Lane. Despite recent reports to the contrary, this extension is still subject to two applications for judicial review that, if successful, will prevent it being done.

There is now the prospect of Public Footpath 121 from North Crescent to Eastwoodbury Lane being stopped up for at least six months to enable construction to proceed.

The complexity of the road, a section of which would be taken down a deep excavation requiring a pump to keep it clear of surface water, makes a nonsense of any description of it as a relief road. A simple relief road could be built at much lower cost both in terms of construction, maintenance and running costs. It is clearly designed to accommodate the runway extension and permission to build it is part of the same planning consent. If this consent is judged unlawful as seems likely, there is no consent for the road to be built. This is sufficient reason to object to the premature temporary stopping up of the path. You have until the 25th of February to write to the council and object.

Ignore the spin, no park has ever been improved by driving a road though it. Residents should keep protesting, they do not have to accept noise and pollution in their park just so that Stobart can keep them awake at night flying fully loaded freight aircraft out of Southend.

Name and address supplied

“Our council deserves praise”

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

I WOULD like to say how good it is to have one’s say in matters concerning our own environmental problems.
All the residents of North Crescent have had to put up with vandalism, damage to properties, cars jumped on, the riding of motorbikes in St Laurence Park, having to call the fire brigade and police for anti-social behaviour, in summer – late night parties, shouting and screaming at midnight and nearly all these events took place around the swing park.
With the coming of the new road Stobarts are building, the residents of North Crescent were informed that the swing park would be moving 50 yards nearer to the rear of the properties.
The land on which St Laurence is situated was left to the residents of St Laurence.
Therefore, I wrote to the Town Clerk explaining that I thought this was totally unfair and if anything, requested the swing park to be moved further away, if any moving was to be carried out.
The cabinet of councillors had a meeting and the outcome was they had listened to me and agreed to move the swing park further away.
To that, I take my hat off to them all and say ‘well done Southend councillors’ and on behalf of North Crescent residents, thank you very much.
While writing this letter, another feather should be put in Southend Council’s hat and that is the subject of refuse.
Southend must have the best and most efficient refuse collection in the country.
The residents put out black bags for household waste, pink bags for recycling and small blue boxes for waste food.
On collection days, the refuse lads are so polite and helpful and swift and efficient, they come and go with no trouble at all.
On Radio Essex the other day, the lady presenter (I do not know her name) was moaning about refuse collection in her area. The trouble was ‘wheelie bins’ and so many of them.
If there was a competition who would clear refuse the quickest, Southend would be about three days in front.
If you watch what a refuse collector at, say, Rayleigh or Rochford Council have to do, they wheel the bin to the back of the dustcart, sometimes wait while they hook bins on a hoist and then wait until it comes down and then have to wheel them back to the resident’s drive.
The time this operation must take, plus looking down a turning as they go along, all unsightly bins. The money this must cost!
Many people might not agree with me, however, I would just like to give a big thank you to Southend Council for not wasting money on wheelie bins.

Terry Christmas, Southend

Appropriation and Disposal of Open Space Land at St Laurence Park

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

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

NOTICE is hereby given that Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (“the Council”) intends to appropriate and dispose of portions of open space land at St Laurence Park at Eastwood, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex for highway purposes to enable the construction of a new link road between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way.

The Council will compensate for the loss of the open space land by appropriating 5.2 acres of adjacent farmland for use as public open space to extend the park.

The above appropriation and disposal will enable the implementation of planning permission for the development of London Southend Airport and irrespective thereto will also bring significant highway benefits to the town in its own right in terms of improving capacity and traffic flows.

A report of the proposal was presented to the Council on 4th November 2010 and a copy of the report thereof can be seen on the Council website at www.southend.gov.uk. The report and a plan can beinspected at all reasonable hours at the Contact Centre of the Council at the address given below.

Any objection to the proposed appropriation and/or disposal of the open space for highways purposes must be made in writing to John Williams, Head of Legal and Democratic Services at the address given below to be received by no later than Wednesday, 15 December 2010. Any objections will then be considered by the Council.

R. Tinlin
Chief Executive & Town Clerk

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

Dated: 17 November 2010

Airport picks up progress award

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

SOUTHEND Airport has beat off competition to win a prestigious award.

The European Regions Airline Association handed bosses the Airport Achievement Award 2010 for progress made over 12 months.

Judges were impressed with the ‘professional execution’ in the airport’s achievement in getting planning permission for the runway extension without a public enquiry before it is built in 2011. [Essentially, they are being rewarded for successfully subverting the democratic process.]

The airport was also congratulated at the Catalynya Congress Centre, in Barcelona, for ‘seizing the window of opportunity provided by the London 2012 Olympics’. [Southend Airport is not an official Olympics transport provider and there is no indication that they will become one. Furthermore, it is unlikely in the extreme that they would be able to have the runway extension finished in time for the Olympics, which is now less than two years away.]

Alastair WElch, airport managing director, said: “We are delighted to win this award, which is a testament to all the hard work that has been put in by the entire team at Southend Airport in making the plans for our development a reality.

“It’s an exciting time for the airport right now as we are now beginning to see all the developments we have been planning and working towards finally starting to happen.”

International airports had been shortlisted for the recognition which recognises those who play a positive role in intra-European air transport operations.

Southend Airport is expected to be complete in 2012, along with a new railway station and control tower.

Roadworks required to enable the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane will begin in autumn while planning permission has been granted for a nearby 126-bedroom hotel.

It is hoped more than two million passengers will use the site per year by 2020. [There is no realistic prospect of this though, given that by then the oil price is likely to make flying prohibitively expensive for all but a very limited number of people.]