David Amess MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear David,

Thank you for forwarding me Paul Clark’s response in your letter of 18th November.

We are aware that the Secretary of State is generally reluctant to call planning applications in but believe that in this case it is desirable. The planning application to extend the runway does indeed involve issues beyond local importance in addition to meeting a number of the other criteria for call-in:

• conflict with national policies on important matters
  The expansion of Southend Airport to 2mppa is not supported by the Air Transport White Paper of 2003. The ATWP envisages a role for the airport supporting the needs of local businesses. No runway extension would be required for this.
  The expansion of any airport conflicts with the Climate Change Act as it would result in an increase in CO2 emissions. The extension of the runway at Southend Airport enables this. As you will be aware, the Government’s policy on aviation is entirely at odds with the overriding requirement to save the planet from devastating global warming.
• could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality
  Clearly, climatic impacts would satisfy this. However, the inadequacy of the road infrastructure to cope with an increase in traffic as a result of the airport expansion would also have effects beyond the immediate locality. The airport expects a 5% increase in traffic on roads that are already at or near capacity.
• give rise to substantial regional or national controversy
  As you will be aware from your mailbag, this topic is very controversial locally. There is also substantial concern nationally about airport expansion.
• raise significant architectural and urban design issues
  Southend is the fifth most densely populated area in the UK outside London. There are about 20,000 houses and ten schools under or near enough to the flight path to be affected by the increase in noise the airport expansion would cause. The Council themselves acknowledge that the airport is not in the right place, so logically, expansion would be inappropriate for the area.
• involve the interests of national security or of foreign governments
  Airports are quite obviously intrinsically linked with national security.

It should be noted that any one of the reasons in bold is sufficient justification for call-in.

I would now like to turn to the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP). Mr Clark should be made aware of the overwhelming opposition shown in both phases of JAAP consultation conducted so far.

The Councils noted in their report on the first phase of consultation that “Despite some support, the majority of respondents were opposed to Scenario 3. There was significant opposition to Scenario 3, particularly, but not exclusively, from members of the public.” One would expect, particularly given that they go on to spell out a number of those objections, that the second phase of consultation would not then select Scenario 3 as the Preferred Option that the Councils wished to pursue and yet they did. The full document is available at:

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/JAAP_%20issues_and_options_summary_consultation_response.pdf

Unfortunately, there is at the present time no similar document for phase 2 of consultation, but we know from the ‘Brief Summary of Representations’ at:

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/JAAP_representations_summary.pdf

that over three quarters of respondents opposed the runway extension specifically, and there was an even higher level of opposition to the JAAP Preferred Options as a whole.

By suspending the JAAP, the most contentious issue in it – the extension of the runway and the expansion of the airport more generally – will no longer form part of the JAAP when it finally resumes. This means that we will be denied the opportunity of a Public Examination of this issue, whether or not a Public Inquiry is called to examine the planning application.

We have been in touch with the Government Office for the East of England and are aware that they are monitoring the situation. Our minds would be put more at ease if GO East were to issue an Article 14 direction letter preventing Southend Council deciding the application.

Thank you for your continued assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald
Chairman, SAEN