A report from Southend Airport’s exhibition on its expansion followed by an interview with Denis Walker, Spokesman for SAEN.
Posts Tagged ‘Denis Walker’
Airport applies to extend terminal
Friday, January 13th, 2012Public Inquiry into Airport Proposals
Wednesday, March 9th, 2011PLANS 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.”
Airport debate imminent
Tuesday, March 1st, 2011Lib Dems step up campaign for night closure
Report by JOHN BLACK
SOUTHEND Council could hold special meetings of its Cabinet and full council later this month to decide on what changes need to be made to the night flying hours at Southend Airport under its expansion programme.
Coun Nigel Holdcroft, leader of Southend Council, has always maintained that he wants this issue decided before councillors begin campaigning for the local elections in May.
The airport debate could be held towards the middle of this month.
There is tradition that the council should not discuss controversial issues – particularly where political capital can be made in debate, in the month before the elections.
This has been challenged, though, by the two Lib Dem candidates for Leigh and West Leigh – Coun Peter Wexham and Chris Bailey.
They issued a statement last week saying: “Why is Coun Holdcroft so frightened of the voters? Is he afraid that they will not like the scheme he is cooking up with Stobart’s? What he should be afraid of is Stobart’s and their wish to make money out of night flights.
“At present our nights are quiet because there is so little business at the airport. But the danger local residents face is obvious.
“When the airport runway is lengthened it will be able to handle larger planes. And with the other airports in the south east closed at night they will come here.
“Stobart’s must be planning to make money from night flights, otherwise why would they resist a night closure?”
As the Lib Dem candidates for Leigh and West Leigh they say they want to make their position clear.
“To us, the tarting point for any decision on night flying is simple. London City Airport is closed from 10pm to 6.30am on weekdays to protect local residents from noise. We demand the same.”
Decision
They add that pushing a decision through before the election “will not help him.”
“Voters on May 5 will take revenge on councillors who vote to shatter our sleep with night flights,” the two candidates said.
Coun Holdcroft also denounced a statement from Coun Graham Longley, leader of the Lib Dems group that a deal, negotiated ‘in secret’, had already been drawn up between the council and Stobart’s.
Coun Longley said: “Letters from Mrs Jo Marchetti, Stobart Air’s community affairs co-ordinator appears to say that the airport will reclassify the night period from 12.00-6.00am to 23.00m – 6.30am and that passenger flights will not be permitted during these new times.
“The letter further points out that ‘night movements’ will be limited to an average of four flights per night – the current average – and aircraft with a quota count of more than one will not be permitted.
“Although these new regulations do not go far enough and it is disappointing there is not a full night closure they will go some way towards allaying residents fears and concerns.”
Coun Holdcroft commented: “I don’t know what Coun Longley is on about. It is no secret that we have been having ongoing talks with the airport – this was reported in this newspaper. We obviously want something definitive on controls to put to councillors when the debate is held.”
In the meantime, the anti-airport expansion group, SAEN has announced that a renewal of claim for permission to apply for Judicial Review has been filed with the High Court. This means that a 20-minute hearing in front of a High Court judge will take place later this year. “We understand that it is usual for such a hearing to take place within two months” said spokesman Denis Walker.
Challenged
He revealed that all grounds for refusal are being challenged by the lawyers pursuing the case on behalf of one of SAEN’s members.
He said: “We are now in the position that the initial refusal is effectively meaningless. The decision will now be taken by the judge presiding over the Oral Hearing. We look forward to confirmation of the date of that hearing.
“We would urge the council and the airport to show restraint during this period and not to start work on the link road between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, at least until the outcome of this hearing is known.”
The group’s original application for a full Judicial Review was rejected – as reported in the last issue of this newspaper.
Airport review rejected
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011Expansion plans take a major leap forward
THE planned expansion of Southend Airport has taken a major leap forward with the decision of a High Court judge that a judicial review was not warranted.
Work is now underway to try and ensure that Southend councillors will be able to have a full debate on any outstanding issues regarding the expansion of Southend Airport in March – before councillors begin campaigning for the May local elections.
West Leigh Coun Nigel Holdcroft, leader of Southend Council, said: “It would be totally inappropriate to have such a debate in the run-up to an election.”
The urgency to get the airport issue ‘done and dusted’ followed the decision of the High Court’s Mr Justice Cranston to rule out a judicial review of the process within the council which led to the go-ahead being given for the runway extension. His full ruling is available here.
Coun Holdcroft said: “His judgement was pretty substantial. The lady who sought the review now has seven days to decide whether to seek to renew the application for the judicial review with a further application for an oral hearing.
“If she does we hope it would take place in March, and shouldn’t take too long. The problem is that if she is successful there would be a full judicial review and this could take time and prove to be very costly for all concerned.”
The solicitor for the applicant, Laura Millard, who is understood to come from Leigh, has said: “Yes, we have been refused permission at this stage. However, we are considering whether to renew our application at an oral hearing.”
Stop Airport Extension Now (SAEN), has been backing the call for the judicial review and its spokesman, Denis Walker said: “This is clearly not the news we wanted to hear, but the campaign is by no means over. The people of Southend need to be protected from the noise, pollution and road congestion the runway extension will cause if it goes ahead.”
No order was made for costs, but Coun Holdcroft said they were substantial as far as the council was concerned.
“Had it gone to a full judicial review we would have been looking at a six-figure cost for the council, which is a terrible waste of public money.”
Council ignores public over link road
Monday, January 10th, 2011Southend Council has published a report on Objections to the New Link Road between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, to be considered by the Cabinet and full Council in meetings tomorrow and Wednesday respectively. Denis Walker comments:
It unfortunately comes as no surprise that the Council’s Report to Cabinet recommends they ignore objections from the public and proceed to push ahead with the link road between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way. The public has been ignored in every consultation on the matter to date, so why start listening now? Indeed, we are treated with such contempt that the report on the second phase of JAAP consultation is still to be published 20 months after the consultation finished.
Despite the rather feeble protestations to the contrary made in the report, the whole reason the link road is to be built is to facilitate the extension of the runway at Southend Airport. It is therefore entirely reasonable to object to the appropriation of land to facilitate this road on the grounds that the people of the town do not want the runway extension. Rather than deal with such objections, the report’s authors dismiss them as not being relevant.
It is shocking that council officers, whose wages are paid out of our taxes, feel they can treat the public with this degree of contempt.
There also remain unanswered questions about the safety of the link road, which will be a matter of metres from the extended runway, should it go ahead. For example, why is it necessary for “farmland to be surrendered for [the] safety area” (marked A on the map at Appendix 1) when this land is much further from the runway than the proposed road?
Correspondence with a supporter of the expansion
Saturday, December 11th, 2010Dear Mr Jarvis,
I will address your points inline for ease of reference. You should also refer to the objection to the planning application which SAEN submitted, which provides more detail, at:
http://www.saen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/SAEN-Objection-v1.0.pdf
On 11 Dec 2010, at 15:25, Lee Jarvis wrote:
Good afternoon Mr Walker,
I felt I had to email yourself and your group (SAEN) as I am getting sick and tired of hearing you all go on about how bad the Airport expansion will be for the area.
To be blunt, that’s just tough. You have the right to express your opinions on the matter, as do we.
I live right next to the airport in ***** so will no doubt be affected quite consideribly by the airport expanding. However, I am 100 percent behind the expansion plans, as is nearly every single person I have spoke to ever since the Stobart group have announced their plans. I have hardly heard one negative comment over the future plans (And believe me I speak to a lot of people on this subject).
I can’t account for your experiences. Perhaps you are very careful only to associate with those in favour of the airport. However, all consultations on the matter have revealed an overwhelming majority in opposition to the airport expansion proposals. A petition was recently submitted to the European Parliament by David Amess MP containing around 3,000 signatures of those opposed to the airport expansion.
How you can not see this will be beneficial for the town of Southend and the surrounding areas is beyond me. I have no sympathy whatsoever for residents who live right near the Airport.
Many people have little choice over where they live. A small regional airport catering for up to 50,000 passengers a year with flying clubs and a maintenance and repair facility is an entirely different prospect from one which is aiming to serve 2 million passengers a year and act as a freight hub. People moving to Southend before 2008 would have had no idea that the latter was on the cards, as the plans had not yet been published.
If you don’t want to be affected by airport noise, then why on earth move right next to an airport in the first place? After all, the airport was there way before them, and ever since I was young (I am 31 now) there has always been talk of airport expansion plans.
I, too, am 31. There have been two serious attempts to expand the airport in my memory:
- the one that finally failed in 2005 as a result of the campaign mounted by CAAG and St Laurence Church being granted Grade I listed status
- the current one.
Before that, I recall Southend Council squandering tax payers’ assets by writing off the £11 million of debt the airport had run up under their management, selling a 150-year lease on the airport to Regional Airports for one pound in 1994 and then over the following 16 years pouring a further £5.2 million into the airport in the form of the “Airport Development Fund”, charging rent way below market value for land that falls outside the main lease and most recently, promising to subsidise the road the airport wants to build to enable the runway to be extended to the tune of £2 million.
I get fed up with having to travel to Stansted, Gatwick, Luton Airport whenever I want to go away.
This does not sit well with what you say above. If you want to travel by air, why don’t you move nearer to an airport that flies where you want to go?
I, in turn, have no sympathy for those who choose to fly abroad on holiday, unnecessarily emitting greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere where they do the most damage. There are plenty of fine holiday destinations in the UK and Europe that can be reached conveniently by surface transport.
I often get told by older residents how great the 60′s and 70′s were here when they could fly from their local airport (Southend) across Europe. By having the runway extended this will again be possible.
Have you seen the list of destinations to which Aer Arran proposes to operate? Currently there are two: Waterford and Galway. You can already reach Ireland very cheaply and conveniently by train and ferry.
You will note that in the same year Southend Council sold the airport, the Channel Tunnel opened, providing access to Europe by train. There are also, of course, ferry services.
The services operated in the 1960s and 70s used the current runway, and there is nothing to stop such services operating today. However, many local people also remember the terrible noise they had to suffer in that period and the campaign group that objected to it (BANG – Blenheim Anti-Noise Group). You will also note that the large London airports made many services from Southend commercially unviable, which they continue to be.
Furthermore, a new, better, bigger airport will create a lot more jobs for local residents and encourage more businesses to open, hence bring more money into the local community. Something that currently is a major problem.
Airports actually employ relatively few people – particularly those with budget airlines, as Southend would be. Typically, airports employ around 100 people per million passengers. If Southend somehow manages to attract 2 million passengers per annum (which is seriously doubtful), that would be 200 employees. More than that have been made redundant since Stobart took over, so we would still be looking at a net loss of jobs since 2008. Of course, the Maintenance and Repair facilities also employ people, but these are not dependent on an extended runway and would potentially lose runway slots to passenger or freight services in any case.
The aviation industry in the UK currently causes a net loss to our economy of around £18-20 billion each year. Some detail on this can be found at:
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/downloads/Regional_Airports_Report_summary_Sept2009.doc
I have also been told that one of the main persons behind SAEN has not even been a resident in Southend for many years, having only recently moved back to the area. I therefore don’t see what right they have to try and block these plans. Don’t get me wrong everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however I feel this persons views should not be taken into proper consideration due to them not being a long term resident.
I have no idea to whom you are referring, as to my knowledge, all members of the SAEN committee have lived in the area for a long time. However, just because someone has only just moved to the area that doesn’t make their opinion any less valid. I’m sure that you wouldn’t discount the views of someone new to the area who supported the airport expansion. In any case, we present a united front and are campaigning as an organisation representing our sizeable membership, not as individuals.
I also imagine that a high percentage of your group (SAEN) are retired, so are not worried about the high numbers of people in the area who are currently unemployed and could benefit greatly from the new airport.
I don’t know what you base that assumption on. Even if it were true, such people have children and grandchildren and unless they are unimaginably selfish, will want them to have job opportunities. According to the Audit Commission, the unemployment rate in Southend is 7.1% (see http://tinyurl.com/southend-unemployment). We’ll assume a population of about 180,000 (which is what the Council claims it is, as they maintain that the 2001 census was inaccurate with its ~160,000 figure). 59.6% of the population is of working age (again, from the Audit Commission). That gives us around 7,600 officially unemployed, and of course there are others excluded from the official figures. 200 jobs don’t make much of a dent in that.
People objecting to the expansion of the airport are not doing so to prevent the creation of jobs, but to prevent the serious degradation it would cause to their quality of life. The small number of airport employees would also suffer this degradation if they lived in Southend and would add to our already serious road congestion issues if they did not.
I also presume that none of you like travelling by air either and will NOT use Southend Airport in the future. Or maybe you do travel abroad and use other airports such as Stansted. If this is the case I don’t suppose you give a second thought to local residents there who are affected by noise, but are quite happy to use the airport?
I have never flown and have no intention of doing so. I can’t speak for other SAEN members, not that it’s any of your or my business whether they choose to use Southend Airport.
We actually give the example of Stansted on page 5 of our objection to the planning application. You will see that there are no houses directly under the flightpath of Stansted until you get a long way from the airport. Despite this, there is a very strong anti-expansion campaign in north-west Essex – Stop Stansted Expansion.
Southend is very unusual in having such dense population directly under the flight path and so close to the airport. With the runway extension, houses would be even closer to the runway than at London City Airport.
It would be very interesting indeed if one of the local papers or Radio stations could do a poll on how many residents are FOR or AGAINST airport expansion. I think you might well find the results very shocking, and realise that you don’t have as much support as you may think.
We already have the official Council consultations, which variously show between 60 and 80% opposition. Likewise, the public meetings held by Leigh Town Council have been packed out with objectors. Polls conducted by the media (particularly if done online) are not likely to be as accurate as there would be no requirement for the participants to identify themselves. However, to date, no such polls have been conducted.
I say good on Stobart for breathing new life back into Southend.
Perhaps you should speak to those who have previously suffered Stobart’s aviation ambitions at Carlisle. Fortunately, there, the Judicial Review was successful in preventing the airport from expanding. We’re obviously hoping for a similar result.
Thank you for your time.
Regards
Lee Jarvis
Regards,
–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/
Fears town will be hit by legal bid to stop runway
Friday, December 10th, 2010By JOHN GEOGHEGAN
Political reporter
Waiting game - the courts will decide on airport's future
THE runway extension at Southend Airport could be ditched because of a looming legal challenge, a leading councillor fears.
Tory cabinet member Anna Waite has expressed frustration that the airport operators Stobart could abandon plans completely because of a pending High Court review.
Stobart bosses were banking on getting the airport ready as a passenger hub in time for the 2012 London Olympics and the expected tourist influx.
However, if a judicial review goes ahead Mrs Waite fears these plans will be scuppered, leaving the town’s economic prospects severely damaged.
She said: “The campaign group, Stop Airport Extension Now, is causing more damage to Southend than many realise. Sooner or later, Stobart will take the decision to cut its losses, to abandon, at least in the short term, the runway extension, to use what it can and to get on with running an airport.
“Ironically, it is the residents under the flight path that we sought to protect via the planning consent that will suffer the most.”
Mrs Waite said there are currently few controls on night flights and the existing runway can only handle older, noisier, more polluting planes.
She warned there would be ore freight coming into the airport and constant road closures in Eastwoodbury Lane every time a plane takes off, if the extension does not go ahead.
Mrs Waite added: “Given the delay in judicial review, I think this worst case scenario is day by day becoming a real possibility.”
The council’s Tory leader Nigel Holdcroft added: “Stobart has made substantial investment in the airport already and it will stick around. If it has too many hurdles in place and it chooses not to proceed with the runway extension, it will have to work the current runway harder without the environmental controls in place. The effect on residents would be greater.”
In July, anti-runway campaigners launched a legal bid to block the runway. An unnamed member of the group applied for a judicial review of the decision and won legal aid.
The application claims procedures followed by Southend Council, when it approved the extension, were flawed.
The high Court is still to decide whether to press ahead with a judicial review or not. If it does, the resulting court case, even if it is decided the planning application is valid, could hold up the runway extension for months.
‘£32m financial benefit’
ANNA Waite believes the negative economic impact could be considerable if the extension does not go ahead.
Southend Council believes it could create up to 1,130 extra jobs at the airport and add up to £32million to the local economy.
Mrs Waite, the Tory councillor for social care and housing, said: “Southend has two main economic drivers that could produce a real improvement in the economic standing of the town and its residents – the airport and the seafront along with its pier.
“A fully functioning passenger airport, a world-class maintenance facility and a logistics hub would create significant employment both on and off airport.
“Much-needed jobs from the basic to the really advanced would be generated for residents.”
She also feels the kudos of the new-look airport would have considerable knock-on benefit for local firms, the town and wider area.
She added: “Southend will be a quieter, safer, more pleasant place and will be more economically self-sufficient with better prospects with the runway extension than without it.”
Campaigners put their case
CAMPAIGNERS believe the council should “check its facts” on the promise of economic growth from the airport.
Stop Airport Extension Now spokesman Denis Walker said airports in this country were a “net drain on the economy” to the tune of about £18billion a year.
He explained: “They take people out of the country to spend their money elsewhere and bring far fewer tourists back. An expansion of the airport of the scale being considered would create at best a couple of hundred jobs.”
Mr Walker said the Olympics would not be the opportunity the airport believes them to be, because Southend is further from Stratford than London City Airport and it would only provide business for a month.
He added: “While it is technically true the new restrictions Southend Council has agreed with the airport are tighter than those in force, the practical result would be a vast increase in night flights as there are currently very few.”
Mr Walker also said the campaign group does not expect a decision on whether the judicial review can go ahead until after Christmas now.
He added: “Apparently there is a big backlog of cases in the High Court.”
Questions for Councillors to ask at Special Meeting, 4th Nov
Thursday, November 4th, 2010Dear Councillor,
Further to my letter of 2nd November and in the spirit of Rob Tinlin’s advice that
members of the public can approach their local Councillor in advance of the meeting, if they wish to raise any queries.
I would like to raise a number of queries regarding the report you are to consider this afternoon on behalf of the membership of SAEN. You should bear in mind that at each of the three consultations regarding this scheme (two JAAP consultation phases and the planning application consultation), a substantial majority of respondents has been opposed to the extension of the runway and associated works, including this road.
Having drawn this to your attention, I would like to now turn to the report to be considered by this afternoon’s “special” meetings. I will make use of the paragraph numbering in the report for ease of reference.
1.1 The “significant benefits” claimed for this section of road have not previously been discussed publicly. If the benefits are really that significant, why was this road not proposed independently of the runway extension? Isn’t it the case that this benefit is only now being claimed for convenience?
2.1 d) The building of this road requires the use of park land. Has the Council learned nothing from its previous attempt to build a road through a park and the fact that 30,000 people objected to that proposal?
2.1 f) On paper, the “small net increase in the size of St Laurence Park” sounds fine. No reference is made here to the intention we understand has been expressed elsewhere (and is hinted at in section 3.4 of the report to this meeting) to build a further road through the park at a later date. Indeed, both maps at the end of the report show a brief continuation of road leaving the roundabout to the east into St Laurence Park.
2.1 g) What constitutes a “minor amendment” here?
2.2 The map at Appendix 2 shows a large portion of Footpath 121 being extinguished. It is not clear from this report when this would be due to happen. Given that this report does not deal with the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, can it be confirmed that the footpath would not be stopped up unless and until the section of Eastwoodbury Lane is also stopped up?
2.3 Can it be confirmed that no contribution from the Council’s so-called “Airport Development Fund” or any other Council funding sources, has been or will be given to the airport in respect of this development?
2.4 b) The wording here seems vague. Can it be confirmed that the Council will insist on reinstatement of land if one of the Judicial Reviews is successful?
3.4 Consideration of this link road is inseparable from the question of the runway extension as it is contained within the same planning permission. The building of this road at this time is specifically to expedite the construction of the runway and this is acknowledged within 3.4. The assumption that this link road is “relatively non-controversial” is false. Any road building is controversial (and indeed counter-productive) when the world is facing climate change and peak oil. It is grossly irresponsible of the Council to increase road capacity, particularly given that it is signed up to the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change.
3.7.3 A claim of benefit to the town “irrespective of whether the runway extension proceeds” is illogical – it has already been acknowledged above that if the runway extension does not proceed, the road will be removed. In regard to the 40 year life-span of this road, given that oil is expected to run out by 2030, what use will this road be for the following 20 years?
3.7.5 This paragraph states that the Runway End Safety Area lease currently prevents the construction of the New Link Road. Given the road’s extremely close proximity to the runway it must fall inside the 1:10,000 Public Safety Zone. What assurances does the Council have that using this road will be safe, bearing in mind that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of being hit by a plane in that Public Safety Zone?
5 SAEN would strongly urge all councillors not to agree to grant the Building Licence. This would save money for the Airport Operating Company and inconvenience for the people of the town. Once the outcome of the Judicial Review is known, the Council will be in a better position to know whether or not to grant the Building Licence.
6 It has already been demonstrated that the New Link Road would not bring significant benefits in its own right as without the runway extension, it would be removed.
Regards,
–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/
Open letter to Southend Councillors
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010Dear Councillor,
As you will no doubt be aware, there are three “Special” Council meetings taking place on Thursday this week from 4:30pm to discuss the “link road” between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way that forms part of the planning permission for the runway extension to Southend Airport, which we believe was granted unlawfully. These meetings must be postponed – please read on for the reasons why.
No Publicity
These meetings received no publicity until an inaccurate report appeared in Friday’s Southend Echo. To our knowledge, no attempt was made by the Council to contact SAEN or the SAEN member who is pursuing one of the two Judicial Reviews into the granting of the planning permission to inform them of these meetings. This lack of publicity has meant that we will be unable to comply with the requirement for questions from the public to be submitted at least five working days in advance of the meeting.
Has the Council acted unlawfully?
Further, we understand that a decision on whether to proceed with our member’s Judicial Review will be taken by the High Court within the next two weeks. Given that this is the case, we would urge the council most strongly to postpone these “Special” meetings in order that any suspicions that the Council is being coerced by the airport into acting with haste in this matter are allayed, provide an opportunity for proper public scrutiny and allow the Council to make the decision in possession of the knowledge of whether the High Court intends to investigate the possibility that the Council acted unlawfully in this matter.
Loss of ancient right of way
One of the reasons that SAEN members object to the extension of the runway at Southend Airport is because of the loss of Eastwoodbury Lane, an ancient right of way, that it would necessitate. The “link road” that replaces it would add three-quarters of a mile to a journey from Eastwoodbury Lane east of the airport to St Laurence church, denying the elderly and infirm the opportunity to walk to their local church and encouraging others to make the journey by car instead of on foot.
Lack of Security
The Stobart Group’s Chief Executive, Andrew Tinkler, has made it clear in numerous press comments that his company sees Southend Airport as a key part of its multimodal freight strategy. Security at Southend Airport has never been even close to adequate by today’s standards and it would be easy for terrorists to take advantage of this fact. What is being done to improve the situation and who is going to pay for it? It is not acceptable for Southend council tax payers to foot the bill of policing an airport that is leeching money out of our local economy.
The cost to us all
Aviation is not and has never been profitable. It relies on Government subsidies and other support. For example, aviation fuel is not taxed. It turns out that Southend Airport is also subsidised by Southend Borough Council. One would expect that once the airport lease had been sold (for one pound) by the Council in 1994, that the taxpayer would have stopped subsidising it. Not so. Apparently determined to throw money into a black hole, the Council has given Southend Airport £5.2m since 1996 and yet only received £1.3m in rent since 1994. These figures can be confirmed with Susan Adams, Group Accountant in SBC’s Support Services department.
The 150-year lease signed by the Council in 1994 is spectacularly weighted in the airport lessee’s favour. There are only two explanations for the Council of the time signing that lease – they were either incredibly stupid or very corrupt. When RAL decided to sell the lease to The Stobart Group, they had no trouble in bypassing the clause that meant the Council would see a share of the profit – they sold the company which held the lease, thereby making a profit of £20,999,999 on their £1 investment. At least a proportion of that money rightfully belongs in Council coffers and would go a long way to solving the funding crisis it now has.
Shoddy treatment of Southend residents
The owners of the two smallholdings opposite St Laurence church have been treated with utter contempt by Stobart. First, the airport made derisory offers on their properties, then when one of the owners found a house to move to they were informed that Stobart was no longer offering the deal with which they would buy that property. Both owners have now been informed that Stobart no longer intends to demolish their properties, despite the fact that they are both within the runway Instrument Strip. If the runway extension proceeds, their properties will be worthless and they will receive no compensation. It is time Southend Councillors start to protect the people that elect them instead of the business interests which seek to destroy residents’ livelihoods.
Regards,
–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now
http://www.saen.org.uk/
Irresponsible to hope that “aviation industry bounces back”
Thursday, June 17th, 2010by Denis Walker
It’s obviously sad news that ATC Lasham employees have lost their jobs (reported in the Echo on Tue 15th June), and I’m sure all SAEN members offer their sympathy.
However, the Echo’s claim that any suggestion that the expansion of the airport is in question is “probably unfounded” should not go unchallenged. Firstly for the sloppy journalism it demonstrates: we are working entirely with hypotheticals here and the Echo has not bothered to find out what impact the expansion of the airport would have on the local economy. They are in the position to ask the airport to give specific examples of how the airport expansion would benefit us locally and have failed to do so.
In fact, the whole case for the expansion of the airport is based on unfounded aspirations. Given the huge costs an expansion would bring – the loss of Eastwoodbury Lane, more congestion on the A127 and the inevitable disruption caused by frequent low-flying aircraft – the public has a right to rather more justification than a flimsy promise of unspecified benefits to the local economy and a nebulous promise of jobs.
Blaming the Icelandic volcano for the loss of jobs at ATC Lasham is simply nonsensical – if anything it should have led to an increase in jobs as jet engines which have ingested ash will need to be overhauled.
It is time that we realised that relying on an unsustainable industry that causes disproportionate environmental pollution to rejuvenate our economy is unwise in the extreme. ATC Lasham staff could be retrained to manufacture renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbine blades and be guaranteed a far more stable job.
Asking us to hope that the “aviation industry bounces back” when oil production is expected to peak this decade is frankly irresponsible. We need to save the remaining oil for the most important uses, such as food production instead of extravagantly burning it in aircraft engines to send people on weekend breaks in European cities they could reach by train.
