Development Control Committee
Southend on Sea Borough Council
PO Box 5557
Southend on Sea
SS2 6ZF
16th November 2009
I am writing to you formally to OBJECT IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE WAY to the Planning Application 09/01960/FULM for Southend Airport expansion & extension to the runway.
Rochford District Council & Southend Borough Council’s gross mishandling of the JAAP Consultation Document has resulted in the delayed publishing of the JAAP document analysis/results. This alone would have an adverse affect on DPD, and therefore, constitutes grounds that the Planning Application should be refused on the grounds of PREMATURITY.
JAAP Consultation Document results showed 77.1% of representations were from OBJECTORS. These results, being detrimental to Southend Airport/Stobart Air as well as both Councils preferred outcome, they sought to withhold them from the public domain & scrutiny until a Freedom of Information Officer ordered their release.
I have gone some way, within your imposed time constraints, to research evidence to support my objections; some of these findings are as follows: -
1) Night-time noise from aircraft or traffic can increase a person’s blood pressure even if it does not wake them, according to a new study published today in the European Heart Journal.
(http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_13-2-2008-10-14-29)
Scientists from Imperial College London and other European institutions monitored 140 sleeping volunteers in their homes near Heathrow and three other major European airports.
The researchers measured the volunteers’ blood pressure remotely at 15-minute intervals and analysed how this related to the noise recorded in the volunteers’ bedrooms.
People with high blood pressure (hypertension) have an increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and dementia. High blood pressure is defined as being 140/90mmHg or more by World Health Organisation
The researchers found that volunteers’ blood pressure increased noticeably after they experienced a ‘noise event’ – a noise louder than 35 decibels – such as aircraft travelling overhead, traffic passing outside, or a partner snoring. This effect could be seen even if the volunteer remained asleep and so was not consciously disturbed.
Aircraft noise events caused an average increase in systolic blood pressure of 6.2 mmHg and an average increase in diastolic blood pressure of 7.4 mmHg. The researchers found that the increase in blood pressure was related to the loudness of the noise, so that a greater increase in blood pressure could be seen where the noise level was higher. For example, for every 5dB increase in aircraft noise at its loudest point, there was an increase of 0.66 mmHg in systolic blood pressure.
The research follows recent findings by the same researchers, showing that people who have been living for at least five years near an international airport, under a flight path, have a greater risk of developing high blood pressure than a population living in quieter areas. That study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, showed that an increase in nighttime aeroplane noise of 10dB increased the risk of high blood pressure by 14 per cent in both men and women.
Dr Lars Jarup, one of the authors of the study from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at Imperial College London, said: “We know that noise from air traffic can be a source of irritation, but our research shows that it can also be damaging for people’s health, which is particularly significant in light of plans to expand international airports. Our studies show that nighttime aircraft noise can affect your blood pressure instantly and increase the risk of hypertension. It is clear to me that measures need to be taken to reduce noise levels from aircraft, in particular during night-time, in order to protect the health of people living near airports.”
Both studies were carried out as part of the Hypertension and Exposure to Noise near Airports (HYENA) project, a four-year study exploring the health effects associated with exposure to aircraft noise. The project includes cross-sectional studies near major airports in Germany (Berlin Tegel), Greece (Athens), Italy (Milano Malpensa), the Netherlands (Amsterdam Schiphol), Sweden (Stockholm Arlanda) and the UK (London Heathrow), including a total of 5,000 study subjects. Dr Jarup is the Principal Investigator for HYENA.
2. Southend Airport forgot to include the 90dB contours for planes taking off to the South West (which they do more often than not). Their findings, based on the current position of the North East end of the runway, will be irrelevant as this is due to be moved South West. This will also move the noise footprint South West, placing even more houses inside the 90dB contour.
3. We are told aircraft such as Boeing 737 & Airbus 319 will be in operation. Fully loaded they will have a higher noise profile than the current empty aircraft that fly in & out for maintenance. These aircraft will be much more visually intrusive due to their size & increased frequency in take-offs & landings than the current small aircraft that use the existing runway. West Leigh is already within the busiest Air Traffic Control region in the UK, this development will add to that problem. Last year, Southampton Airport (cited as the model for Southend Airport) emitted 48,528 tonnes while Southend Airport emitted 850 tonnes of CO2 from departing aircraft. This is over 57 times as much as Southend. Is this what we want for residents, schools, businesses, leisure & open spaces in our area?
4. Neither Council has provided a “busiest day” operation forecasts. I refer the Planning Committee to the UK Tranquility Map (produced by CtPRE) & Defra Noise Mapping for the Leigh area & surrounding postcodes that shows our gardens, parks, schools & open spaces are our last bastions of tranquility in this region. Only those living nearest to the airport will be offered noise-reducing solutions BUT THERE IS NO SUBSTITUE FOR BREATHING FRESH AIR FROM OPEN WINDOWS ON BALMY SUMMER EVENINGS. NO compensation of any kind would alleviate the adverse impact on our lives or appreciation of location. It has been predicted by local estate agents that lower property prices can be expected to reflect the adverse & detrimental affects on our location caused by Southend Airport/Stobart Air’s proposals.
The Planning Application, itself, contains conflicting evidence as follows:
PPG24 Planning & Noise (4.3.29)
4.3.29 The LAeq (the equivalent continuous sound level) is the Government’s chosen noise metric for describing air noise and is the indicator of comparative “annoyance value” of different sets of noise events. For air traffic 57 dB LAeq represents the daytime threshold for the lowest noise exposure category (NECA) and is therefore regarded as the onset of significant community annoyance.
Noise Impact of the Proposed Development (9.3.4)
9.3.4 In respect of daytime noise the use of the LAeq, 16h parameter for the 16-hour period 0700 -2300hrs is stipulated as the basis for the noise exposure contour, with the ATWP stating that air noise assessments should use the 57 dB LAeq,16h contour as the principal method of rating the significance of the noise impacts – this noise level representing the ‘onset of low community annoyance’.
I am appalled to see the following paragraphs contained in the Planning Application:
9.6.6 In accordance with screening guidance in the latest Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance, which takes into account scale of proposed airport development and existing conditions, it has not been deemed necessary to undertake detailed air quality assessment of aircraft emission
9.6.8 It can therefore be concluded that there will be no significant impact caused by aircraft or traffic pollution levels in the LSA area and there would be no breach of Air Quality Objectives.
In Southend Airport’s own leaflet “Runway Extension & Associated Development Health Impact Assessment” Stanstead & Birmingham Airports were used as models. It states:
ERM (2008) carried out a rapid health impact assessment of the Birmingham International Airport’s runway extension & associated developments.
The studies found that the proposed runway extension & associated developments at Birmingham International Airport would increase the proportion of the population annoyed and had their sleep disturbed by the aircraft noise. The proportion of children whose learning would be detrimentally affected by noise would also increase.
Surely omission of such an important assessment as Air Quality/Health Impact on what is a massively invasive proposal is nothing short of criminal. In respect of Southend Airport/Stobart Air proposals desk/computer based profiles have been applied. No factual evidence!
Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane will funnel thousands of traffic movements onto the already congested A127, causing untold misery to, & longer journey times for, drivers. The main point is that the replacement road creates a huge detour for people wanting to access the Church from the east, for example. It also puts more stationary vehicles with occupants inside the Public Safety Zone. On safety, it’s also important to mention that no societal impact assessment has been done should there be a catastrophic incident involving risk to large numbers of people (e.g. plane crash), This needs to be assessed. A cost-benefit analysis on closing Blenheim School should also be given high priority. All risk & safety assessments MUST be undertaken BEFORE granting planning permission.
I also find it necessary to register complaint against the Planning Department’s procedure/actions on several counts: -
It was impossible to download the full Planning Application from Southend Borough Council’s totally inadequate official website. Thereby denying proper & thorough scrutiny of this document.
The Planning Department’s choice of minimum time allocation, including the extended deadline, for responses was wholly & disproportionately inadequate to allow thorough consideration of a very important issue. The Planning Application consisted of over 1000 pages of technical data & general information. It is vital, on such a massive issue pertaining to the wellbeing of residents of such a large area of Essex, that we are able to scrutinize ALL information crucial to make an informed and balanced judgment.
Restriction to 6000 characters for on-line responses is ludicrously few for a document of over 1000 pages.
Both Southend Borough Council & Rochford District Council have been totally negligent in upholding their ‘Duty of Care’ to residents of Leigh-on-Sea, Eastwood, Rochford, Hockley & Southend-on-Sea by pursuing, supporting & condoning Southend Airport Management & Stobart Air’s application for runway extension & maximum airport expansion by declaring it their PREFERRED OPTION, in the face of & contrary to, the consensus of many thousands of local residents & businesses that the lesser growth option was their PREFERRED OPTION.
Yours truly
DD
PS. Please note I request written confirmation of receipt of this letter.
