Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of Information’

JAAP Phase 2 results published

Friday, November 6th, 2009

It’s been a long battle, but we now have the official results of Phase 2 of consultation on the Joint Area Action Plan. SAEN submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office in June after Rochford Council failed to provide information we requested under the Freedom of Information Act. It is as a result of this complaint that Rochford Council has today been forced to publish the number of objections they received.

The figures are now available on Rochford Council’s website at:

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

As noted in the preamble of that document, the numerical breakdown we now have isn’t the whole picture. It is the content of people’s objections that counts, but Rochford Council are still withholding this information in the case of submissions made on paper. Another document is due to be published by the Council at a later date providing a proper analysis of the results, but given the overwhelming opposition to the airport’s expansion, it’s obvious that they are very reluctant to publish.

BBC London News is running the story this evening (6:30pm, BBC1 London). Fran and I were interviewed and no doubt Alistair Welch will do his usual “Jobs, jobs, jobs” routine.

Our press release is available at:

http://www.saen.org.uk/2009/11/huge-opposition-to-airport-expansion-revealed/

Tags: , , ,
Posted in News | No Comments »

Huge opposition to airport expansion revealed

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release

5th November 2009

Huge opposition to airport expansion revealed

The “Stop Airport Extension Now” (SAEN) campaign is today celebrating success in forcing Rochford District Council to reveal the results of a consultation into plans to expand Southend Airport.

Initially, Rochford Council refused to release the figures, claiming that it was not in the public interest to do so[1]. However, following a Freedom of Information appeal by SAEN, the Information Commissioner ruled that the Council must publish the results[2].

At the time of writing, the results are yet to appear on the Rochford Council website[3], but SAEN has learned that they show that out of 2229 respondents, 1718 had objections to the Joint Area Action Plan with 437 of 572 specifically opposing the runway extension.

Denis Walker, press officer for SAEN, said “It’s a pity Rochford Council wanted to hide these figures from the public. It’s only through the determined work of the SAEN committee that the Information Commissioner ruled that they had to be released.

“What the figures show is that there is an overwhelming majority against the airport expansion – well over three to one against. No wonder the Council wanted to keep them quiet. It demonstrates that Southend and Rochford Councils are more interested in supporting big business than protecting local residents’ quality of life.”

People need to remember that even though they may already have registered their opposition, they have to do it again by submitting an objection to the airport’s planning application by 20th November. Details on how to do this are available at http://saen.org.uk/

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

[1] http://www.saen.org.uk/2009/08/shaun-scrutton-refusal-to-publish-consultation-results-and-other-matters/
[2] http://www.saen.org.uk/2009/11/information-commissioners-ruling-on-jaap-results/
[3] http://www.rochford.gov.uk/

About SAEN:

SAEN was formed to campaign against the runway extension at Southend Airport. The group is not opposed to the Airport itself, which has co-existed with the residents of Southend for many years. SAEN is against the runway extension, which would lead to a massive increase in flights and destroy the lives of the people living, working or going to school anywhere near the flightpath.

Website: http://saen.org.uk/
For further comment, email press@saen.org.uk

Tags: , ,
Posted in Press Releases | 2 Comments »

Council forced to reveal airport opposition figures

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release

3rd November 2009

COUNCIL FORCED TO REVEAL AIRPORT OPPOSITION FIGURES

After intervention by the Information Commissioner, Rochford District Council have been told to publish the results of Stage 2 of the Joint Area Action Plan relating to the expansion of Southend Airport.

Initially Shaun Scrutton, the Head of Planning from Rochford DC, had refused to release the information on the grounds that “it was not in the public interest”. However, after representations from SAEN, the Council will now have to reveal the extent of the public opposition to the scheme. Unofficial assessments by SAEN have revealed that the on-line responses were 80% opposed to airport expansion. It is expected that the written opposition will be similarly overwhelming, but this is the information that Mr. Scrutton wanted to keep quiet.

“Obviously we are pleased that the Council has had to reveal this information,” said Kiti Theobald, the SAEN Chairman, “but this episode reveals what a grubby process the Council have allowed themselves to become embroiled in. Telling the public that it’s not in their interests to know collectively what their views are on an issue is something taken straight from the Afghan School of Democracy, but I’m afraid that this is what we’ve come to expect from Rochford and Southend Councils where the airport is concerned.”

There is a planning application currently open for which objections need to be submitted by 20th November. http://saen.org.uk/planningapp.

ENDS

Notes to Editors:

SAEN was formed to campaign against the runway extension at Southend Airport. The group is not opposed to the Airport itself, which has co-existed with the residents of Southend for many years. SAEN is against the runway extension, which would lead to a massive increase in flights and destroy the lives of the people living, working or going to school anywhere near the flightpath.

Website: http://saen.org.uk/

Tags: , ,
Posted in Local Government, Press Releases | No Comments »

Information Commissioner’s ruling on JAAP results

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

3 November 2009

Case Reference Number FS50254427

Dear Mrs Theobald and Mr Clarke

Further to your recent submissions I have been in contact with Rochford Council. I have indicated my view that the provision of a numerical analysis of the representations received to the JAAP consultation would not constitute the creation of new information and, on that basis, it would be my initial assessment that that information should be provided.

The council has considered my arguments and has agreed to undertake a numerical analysis of the nature of the comments received (ie ‘support’, ‘comment’ or ‘object’) and publish this on its website on 6 November 2009.

It has indicated that a more thorough analysis of the JAAP consultation is not now expected to be reported until early 2010 when it will be published alongside the next submission version of the JAAP.

I note that your original complaint to the Commissioner was wider in scope than this element alone, but that you had indicated that this was the most pressing aspect. Your email, received 19 October, appears to indicate that the scope of your complaint has now been narrowed to cover this material alone, in the hope of a speedy resolution.

Assuming that the council does publish as promised on 6 November, I therefore propose to close this case as ‘informally resolved’. I would therefore be grateful for an indication from you (once the disclosure has been received) if you are content to withdraw your complaint at that point. If there are matters which still require my attention, however, please make me aware of them at that point.

I hope the above is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Steven Dickinson
Complaints Officer

Tags: , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government, News | No Comments »

Shaun Scrutton: Refusal to publish consultation results and other matters

Monday, August 24th, 2009
Directorate of External Services
Head of Planning & Transportation
Shaun Scrutton, BSc(Hons), Dip TP,
MRTPI, IHBC, MBA, MCMI

Ask for: Shaun Scrutton Ext: 3400
Direct Dial: 01702 318 100
Email: shaun.scrutton@rochford.gov.uk

My Ref: SS/JAAP

Rochford
District Council

Ms K Theobold
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend on Sea MLO
Short Street
Southend on Sea
Essex SS1 1AA

24 August 2009

Dear Ms Theobold

London Southend Airport – Freedom of Information Request

I refer to your letter of 2 August seeking further information with regard to various matters related to London Southend Airport.

In the first instance, I would draw your attention to my letter of 2 July 2009, which provided a response to several letters including, those dated 17 April and 3 May 2009. I will provide further comments about those letters after dealing with the four issues raised in your letter dated 2 August.

  1. Freedom of Information Request (FOIA)
    As I said in my letter of 2 July, a written scheme of investigation (WSI) has been prepared detailing the arrangements for archaeological monitoring and recording of the groundworks relating to the construction of the railway station. It is standard practice for the Council to issue a schedule of fees for copying of documents required under the FOIA, but in this instance I have waived the charge and enclosed a copy of the WSI. This is a publicly available document linked to the planning consent for the railway station and terminal building.

    At this point in time, I have no details of the investigations that have been carried out in the initial stages of the preparatory work for the construction of the station. I expect a copy of the final report to be provided to the Council once the groundworks are complete.

    I note your comments regarding the Council’s complaints procedure – please find attached details of the scheme. If you would like to make a formal complaint, please complete the form and return to the Council as directed.

  2. Section 106 Agreement
    This is a request for comments on the correct interpretation of the S106 agreement and is not a Freedom of Information Request.

    I understand that you have a copy of the S106 agreement related to the outline planning consent (reference 97/00526/OUT) granted on 19 July 1999. In your letter you ask for comments on the interpretation of Section 3.6 which relates to the requirement for the installation of a noise monitoring system once the airport reaches a total of 650,000 passengers per annum or 90,000 air traffic movements.

    I would draw your attention to section 2.1 of the S106; this provides a definition of the term ‘Airport’ as meaning ‘the commercial undertaking now operated from the said land’. That being the case, it is my view that the interpretation of section 3.6 is clear and a noise monitoring system will be required when the airport exceeds either of the two figures specified.

    Question 2a – this question is not a Freedom of Information request, but invites speculation/interpretation of draft policies LS2 and LS3. Any representations duly made during the recent plan consultation will be taken into account in the preparation of the submission plan.

    Question 2b – this question is not a Freedom of Information request, but invites speculation/interpretation of the JAAP, S106 agreement for the terminal and railway station and the airport lease (the responsibility of Southend Council).

    The conditions included in the planning consent for the terminal and railway station and provisions of the S106 (including the extract from the lease clause 4.23 (night flying) set out planning controls over the operation of the airport with the new terminal in operation.

    Question 2c – I am not certain that I have understood your request correctly. Therefore I should be grateful if you would rephrase your request in clearer terms. Once I have received your revised request I will provide a response within five working days. If you need assistance with this, please contact me on the above telephone number, or by email.

  3. S106 Review Meeting
    The comments and questions set out in section 3 of your letter do not constitute a Freedom of Information request, but seek information and interpretation of the contents of the S106 agreement.

    Question 3a – it is for Rochford District Council to determine whether there is a need or justification for any meetings with the signatories of the S106 agreement to carry out a review of its contents.

    Since there is no imminent prospect of the approved terminal commencing construction, the Council does not propose to devote resources to carrying out a review of the S106 agreement.

    Question 3b – this question is not applicable given my response to question 3a.

    Question 3c – this question is not applicable given my response to question 3a.

  4. JAAP Preferred Option – consultation results
    This is considered to be a request for information to be published under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. The information sought is held by this Authority.
    This information is exempt under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act as it is information that is reasonably accessible by other means. Namely, all responses received to the consultation on the JAAP preferred options document are available to view on the Council’s website at
    http://www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/policy/local_development_framework/london_southend_airport.aspx

    The joint Councils will provide a detailed analysis of the responses received and explain how these will be taken into account in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.

    Your request asks the Council to undertake work to prepare a statistical breakdown of the responses received in advance of the publication of a full report on the consultations. I also refuse this request under the provisions of section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act. The reason for refusing your request under section 22 is that it is important that a proper assessment, review and analysis of the consultation responses is prepared and published in full at the next stage in the plan making process. It is anticipated the submission version of the JAAP will be published later in 2009. In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

That concludes my response to your letter of 2 August.

Following receipt of your letter, the Council contacted the Information Commissioner’s Office since no communication had been received regarding your complaint. I understand that an email was sent on 21 July, but this was not received and a copy was forwarded to the Council on 10 August 2009.

The Information Commissioner has requested you be provided with a response in relation to the contents of letters sent to the Council dated 17 April and 3 May 2009. In fact, my letter of 2 July referred to both these letters and it may be that you did not send a copy of that letter to the Commissioner’s office.

In any event, I set out below a full response to the matters raised in both letters. The majority of the questions in the letters do not relate to ‘recorded information’, but rather seek information/interpretation of published documents. I have clearly set out where a matter is considered to be related to recorded information and where it relates to questions.

Letter dated 17 April 2009

  1. Airport Lease
    This is not a Freedom of Information request.

    As I said in my letter of 2 July 2009, I am not prepared to comment on the contents of the lease. The S106 agreement includes an extract from the lease relating to night flying, but I see no reason to comment on this fact – the hours of operation specified are clear and do not require interpretation.

    You also ask about the use of the airport as a base for freight. The joint Councils will be considering in detail the concerns raised about cargo flights in the JAAP Preferred Options consultation.

  2. Section 106 Agreement
    The planning consent for the airport terminal and railway station and the S106 is recorded information and available to view at the Council’s offices as part of the planning register. However, notwithstanding my earlier point regarding the charging schedule for documents, I have enclosed a copy of both documents with this letter.

    For your information, there is only one S106 agreement.

    I have answered your question about arrangements for a review of the S106 agreement in my earlier comments to your letter of 2 August.

[No, we don't know where 3 is either. - SAEN Webmaster]

  1. Baseline of noise levels in JAAP Preferred Options
    The ten questions (a to j) in this section of your letter are not considered to be requests under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    1. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    2. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    3. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    4. An Environmental Impact Assessment is a document prepared in certain circumstances to accompany the submission of a planning application.
    5. This question is noted and will be considered during the preparation of the Submission Plan.
    6. This question is noted.
    7. This question is noted.
    8. This question is noted.
    9. This question is noted.
    10. This question is noted.
  2. Original Planning application SOS/03/00010/FUL
    This relates to a planning application submitted to Southend Borough Council. If you require a copy of the application or comments, you will need to contact that authority directly at the following address:

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

    You also seek information/comments on various policies in the Southend Local Plan. Again, you will need to contact the Authority directly.

  3. Runway length and safety implications
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    You ask a specific question about the contents of the JAAP Preferred Options document and the requirements of the CAA. It is likely that further information will be included as background in the submission version of the JAAP, but the JAAP has no role in guiding or informing any decisions taken by the CAA as the responsible authority for licensing aerodromes.

  4. Compensation Issues
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
    The matters you raise will be considered in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.
  5. Pollution measurement
    This is not a request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
    Matters related to the measurement of air quality will be considered in the preparation of the submission version of the JAAP.
  6. Miscellaneous
    The report to the JAAP Forum is recorded information, and its release for consideration is under the Freedom of Information Act.

    7. The JAAP Forum meeting held on 19 May 2008 was not a public meeting and in principle the Council would take the view that it would be appropriate to apply an exemption to the release of the report. However, given the date of the meeting and the lack of any sensitive information in the report, a copy is attached for your information.

Letter dated 2 May 2009

  1. Condition 13 – Planning Application Ref 97/00526/OUT
    This request is to be considered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in respect of the publication of the WSI. This matter is dealt with earlier in the letter and I will not therefore comment further.

    As regards the application of conditions to future planning consents, please see comments in my letter of 2 July 2009.

  2. Construction of 06/24 runway

    3. This is not a matter to be considered under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

    I am not aware of any recorded information held by the Authority regarding the construction of the runway in the 1950s. As I said in my letter of 2 July 2009, if you would like information about the construction of the runway, you will need to contact the airport operating company.

I believe that deals with all the items in your various letters.

If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review (as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this letter) by writing to:

Rochford District Council, Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW.
Or alternatively email: customer.care@rochford.gov.uk

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. Telephone: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45 Website: www.ico.qov.uk

There is no charge for making an appeal.

In any event a copy of this letter has been sent to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely

Shaun Scrutton
Head of Planning & Transportation
Encs

  1. WSI detailing archaeological monitoring and recording of groundworks in relation to construction of the railway station.
  2. Rochford District Council’s Comments, Compliments and Complaints Customer Guide.
  3. Rochford District Council’s Comments, Compliments and Complaints Customer Feedback Form.
  4. Planning consent in relation the airport terminal and railway station (97/00526/OUT).
  5. S106 agreement in relation to planning consent (97/00526/OUT).
  6. Report by Shaun Scrutton to the London Southend Airport and Environs Action Plan Forum on 19 May 2008, titled London Southend Airport and Environs – Joint Area Action Plan DPD – Process.

cc Information Commissioner’s Office
Wyclffe House Water Lane Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | 4 Comments »

SAEN challenges Rochford Council to release consultation results

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

The following is a general press release issued on behalf of SAEN (STOP AIRPORT EXTENSION NOW!) by the chairman, Kiti Theobald on 5th August, 2009 for immediate publication where possible:-

STOP AIRPORT EXTENSION NOW (SAEN) campaigners have challenged Rochford Council to produce a summary of the results of responses to the second stage of the Public Consultation that will decide the future of Southend Airport.

At the beginning of July, the Head of Planning and Transportation at Rochford Council, Shaun Scrutton, stated that “A full analysis of the representations will be published in due course…” It is now three months since the closing date of 15th May, and the individual views, many hundreds of them, have been printed on the Rochford Council website, but no official summary has been published. The silence would seem to suggest that SAEN’s campaign to increase awareness amongst the general public may have succeeded, but also that the result is not the one that either Council wanted, nor anticipated.

During an election, thousands of votes are counted and the results are published within hours; the future of the airport is important to the area – why then, should this summary take so long to publish?

And when will the Southend and Rochford Councils decide to discuss the problems that many people will face if, in spite of overwhelming public protest, the airport is allowed to expand? Break the silence, Councillors; this isn’t going away if it is pushed under the carpet, and the protestors are not going away, either!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »

Sam Hollingworth: Results of JAAP Phase 2 please

Thursday, June 18th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

18th June 2009

Mr. Sam Hollingworth,
Planning Policy Department,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr Hollingworth,

Re: Southend Airport

We are writing to ask for a detailed numeric analysis of the total responses received to each of the various issues and options expressed in the second consultation phase to the Joint Area Action Plan and which closed on the 15th May 2009.

We understand that a summary analysis will be published by the end of June.

Please include reference to the number supporting, objecting and commenting within each possible response.

This information is requested under the Freedom of Information Act and we will be grateful for the full provision of it within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | No Comments »

Shaun Scrutton: Still waiting for answers

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

3rd May 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

Our most recent letter to you was dated the 18th April 2009 to which we await your response.

We would now like to raise additional matters with you.

1. Condition 13 attaching to Planning Application 97/00526/OUT

This states that no development or preliminary ground works of any kind shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

This condition was imposed for the stated reasons of proper investigation and recording of the site located in an area where previous finds have been made.

In view of the recent commencement of work on the railway station we request that you provide us with copies of the referenced scheme of implementation and approval together with details of any investigation work actually carried out and by whom.

We also seek your confirmation that a similar condition would attach to any future application(s) in the context of a runway extension and/or hotel and that a comprehensive programme of archaeological investigation would pre-date the commencement of such works.

The preferred options document does not appear to reference this aspect of the Joint Plan.

2. Construction of the 06/24 runway

We are advised that the existing runway is not constructed from pave quality concrete, the material suitable for modern jet aircraft but from stabilised soil. As this material absorbs water the minimal steel reinforcement used in its construction will after some 50 years have rusted and seriously weakened it.

Copies of the original airport committee minutes originating in 1955 supporting these assertions can be supplied to you on request
With the speed and weight of modern aircraft considerably outstripping that of the originally intended users then the stability of the runway composition must be in doubt with allied safety implications.

We will be pleased to receive your advices on the matters raised above within the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

CC Mr. R. Tinlin – CEO Southend Borough Council

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | No Comments »

Shaun Scrutton: Further requests for information

Saturday, April 18th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

18th April 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

We thank you for your letter dated 3rd April 2009 in reply to ours of the 24th March relating to developments at Southend Airport.

There is no certainly no wish on our part to adopt a confrontational approach with yourselves and our intention has been and remains simply a desire to secure information in relation to proposals which will have a profoundly adverse impact upon the lives of so many local people.

That is information that we are entitled to request and within a reasonable time frame on matters with which we have little expertise. To assume that all letters received by RDC that in any way relate to the JAAP are to be processed as a representation and thus not requiring a proper response appears to us to be a highly questionable policy requiring some re-examination.

It is also not unreasonable for us to believe that RDC would have put sufficient resources in place to contend with a situation consistent with its own policies and with many months in its planning.

However, we recognise that your staff are currently under pressure and we would not want to add to their burden by proceeding with a justifiable complaint provided that we are able to obtain full answers to our enquiries without undue delay.

Our letter of the 24th March requested copies of any RDC minutes which discussed the first phase representations as received and summarised by your own department since the majority of respondents did not support the preferred option strategy which emerged.

Again, we feel entitled to understand at this stage the reasons for the decision by RDC to ignore the majority view provided from invited representations and planning legislation appears to support that view for the reasons given.

We also request that you provide us with a copy of the report submitted by yourself to the London Southend Airport and Environs Action Plan Forum which met on the 19th May 2008 as minuted under item (6) ‘Timetable Issues’.

Other matters remaining from our letter of the 24th are in separate correspondence with Mr. Hollingworth.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | No Comments »

Shaun Scrutton: Request that he answers letters

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009
SAEN
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-Sea
SS1 1AA

http://www.saen.org.uk
committee@saen.org.uk

Stop Airport Extension Now

24th March 2009

Mr. Shaun Scrutton,
Head of Planning and Transportation,
Rochford District Council,
South Street,
Rochford,
Essex

Dear Mr. Scrutton,

We refer to our letter dated 10th March 2009 concerning the information requested in turn at our letter to Mr. Hollingworth dated 27th February 2009.

In the absence of any response we ask that (1) you review what has happened and (2) your complaints procedure be invoked.

Further to our representations on the few protections available to local residents we ask that you provide details of the restricted conditions on night flying attached to Rochford District Council planning permission 97/00526/OUT and a copy of the associated Section 106 Agreement dated 19/7/99.

We also remain very concerned as to whether any of the representations referred to in the recently published Summary Report relating to the front end consultation have actually been taken into account when reaching the announced high growth Preferred Option strategy.

In preparing the Issues and Options Document , the Town and Country Planning (Local Development (England ) Regulations 2004, SI No 2204 (LD Regs) Regulation 25 requires the LPA to consult specific consultation bodies and also to consider if appropriate to invite representations from residents or businesses in the area.

Under Reg 25 (as amended) if an LPA does invite representations it must take them into account and para. 1.5 of the Preferred Options Report says that ’feedback …..has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area’.
Councils have discretion in reaching their decisions but this must be exercised reasonably and reasons should be provided for their decisions.

In this interest, please provide copies of minutes of any Council meetings which discussed the representations.

We also seek your confirmation that the runway length is proposed at 1799 metres for a reason. Were it to be just one metre longer would the attaching safety margins be compromised and, if so, exactly what further safety requirements would be necessary?

All of the information requested to date is under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and your advices are accordingly awaited.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Letters, Local Government | No Comments »