Comments for SAEN

Comment on Inquiry jeopardy to airport jobs by Denis Walker

Denis Walker — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:31:25 +0000

It is disingenuous for Mr Hudson to claim that jobs are at risk if there is a public inquiry into the runway extension as the Saxon Business Park is entirely unrelated to the runway extension and can be developed with or without the airport.

The claim that this proposal will create over 7,000 jobs is also completely unrealistic, particularly bearing in mind Rochford District Council’s intention of knocking down the Eldon Way industrial estate and relocating the businesses to the Saxon Business Park. This means that many of the jobs already exist and are simply being moved from one place to another.

Comment on Is runway approval a foregone conclusion at Southend Airport? by Stan

Stan — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:53:42 +0000

It’s fixed, for sure! Stobart would not pay all this money out without some guarantees….

Comment on Shaun Scrutton: Refusal to publish consultation results and other matters by Russell Gonsal

Russell Gonsal — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:17:12 +0000

I have written to Rochford, with copy letters to Southend, making the point that
1. the “anticipated” 2 million passengers is only a guess. It is not based on any study or survey. It could end up a day dream. So what would we do with an extended runway then? And can the trains from London cope with the increased passenger traffic?
2. I am an architect. It took me only a few minutes to discover that the drawing in the consultation document which shows the planned runway extension is grossly out of scale or a deliberate “mistake” I believe it is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Comment on Errors in Planning Dept’s handling of the planning application by SAEN: Is runway approval a foregone conclusion at Southend Airport?

SAEN: Is runway approval a foregone conclusion at Southend Airport? — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:15:35 +0000

[...] SAEN’s concerns have been outlined in a letter to the Council at http://www.saen.org.uk/2010/01/errors-in-planning-depts-handling-of-the-planning-application/ For privacy, the letter has been edited to remove the names of respondents. The planning [...]

Comment on Airport plan cannot be prejudged by Denis Walker

Denis Walker — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:47:09 +0000

We have the evidence of the second phase of JAAP consultation, which ignored the majority of respondents to Phase 1 and nominated the least popular option as the Councils’ preferred option.

We have the evidence of the shambolic state of the planning application file where legitimate objections were being discounted for no discernible reason, objections and invalid responses were being counted as support and supporting comments were being counted twice.

We now also have the evidence of the Officers’ Report, which recommends that the planning application be approved in many cases solely on the evidence of the applicant with no independent analysis.

People were saying that the decision on this planning application was a foregone conclusion the moment it was submitted. We have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Comment on Objection from DD by A.olley

A.olley — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:11:59 +0000

I live in western road and the noise is very very bad as I write midday 13 jan 2010, a plane has just gone over, a smallish one at that. Why should my life be disturbed by more and more large freight jet aircraft going over my head for the benefit of greedy investors.

I think the decision to increase flights was made before the airport was purchased, do you really think millions were spend on a maybe /chance they would get the go ahead.
Money is god to these people, they know they will get what they want, as well as a few others no doubt. Sorry to say we and you have not got a chance in hell where money comes into it, look at the church, with St Clements Hall.

Kind Regards A.Olley.

Comment on 17 stooges will decide future of the airport by SAEN: I’ll not be brainwashed over airport decision

SAEN: I’ll not be brainwashed over airport decision — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:15:15 +0000

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

Comment on ‘There is no reason to hold an airport inquiry’ by Denis Walker

Denis Walker — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:34:48 +0000

As it says on the SAEN website, “the only people who wouldn’t want the application called in are either those who want the decision made quickly without proper examination or those who are concerned that under full scrutiny, the benefits of the application would look weak.”

For everyone else, a Public Inquiry would give us far more effective scrutiny of the plans and the opportunity to cross-examine both proponents and opponents of the application.

Given that Southend Council has already prejudiced itself by declaring the High Growth scenario their “preferred option” in phase 2 of the JAAP, it would also make the eventual decision less susceptible to challenge.

Comment on Airport is our great asset by Kieran Kelly

Kieran Kelly — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:55:28 +0000

How can something be described as a great asset to Southend when further developement of it will add to increased road congestion, increased noise pollution, increased air pollution, impact on the lives of people living under/close to the flightpath, impact property prices for homeowners, increase costs in council taxpayers to compensate local homeowners, increase harmful emissions and increase council taxpayer costs in providing improved infrastructure and local services to airport users. All I can see is another prime example of poor service to local residents from the self-serving members of Rochford and Southend councils

Comment on Airport is our great asset by Denis Walker

Denis Walker — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:12:46 +0000

I am unclear as to why T E Langley is “sure is a great asset to Southend”. It is certainly an asset of the Stobart Group and it remains to be seen whether it is an asset to them, but where is the benefit for the people of Southend?

Southend Council sold the airport lease for £1 to the previous owners and saw none of the profit they made when they sold their business in December last year for £16m. The people of Southend continue to prop the airport up financially with extremely cheap rent and if the expansion goes ahead, it will be our money used to build the infrastructure to support it. The Council set aside the money raised from the sale of airport land for the Warners Bridge retail park for airport infrastructure – money which should have been used to provide Council services. Why should we prop up a private company when the town’s finances are not exactly solid?