Posts Tagged ‘Kiti Theobald’

You’re wrong about the airport, Mr Jarvis

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

I feel that I must respond to the vitriolic letter written by the embittered Lee Jarvis in last week’s Yellow Advertiser, but I shall try to do so without launching a personal attack.

Mr Jarvis accuses SAEN of telling lies, avoiding the truth, making things up and of not really being worried about the residents of Southend, and by implication, accuses Denis Walker of the same. Truth is stranger than fiction and SAEN members, committee and followers have kept a strict regard for the truth ever since their first meeting. People at that meeting were pleased that someone had volunteered to take on the case of the airport extension, that spokesmen would be dealing with the authorities, writing letters, organising leaflet drops, allocating finance to where it can do the most good, researching information, and above all, putting the residents of Southend first.

Sometimes lies go under the title of ‘spin’; the spin created by the Council and not contradicted by anyone at the airport would suggest that there ill be 6,700 jobs available when the airport expands. This is very far from the truth. Southampton, quoted by Mr Jarvis, has nearly 2 million passengers a year and ‘more than 1200(people) in 30 different companies of whom 200 are BAA Southampton employees’ (BAA Southampton).

I do understand the desperate need for jobs in Southend, as elsewhere, in this current economic climate, but this inflated figure is not to be believed. It includes the forecast for jobs to be created within the Saxon Business Park to be created as part of the Rochford/Southend Area Action Plan, of which the airport extension was only a part. Taking the planning application out of the Action Plan seems to have brought the rest of that particular initiative to a dead halt, as nothing more has been said about it for well over a year.

Mr Jarvis says that ‘most residents want the runway extension to happen’, but if this is so, where are all the letters of support that they could have sent to the Council when the proposition was first made? The letters sent to the Council during the Consultation were overwhelmingly against the extension, against the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, against the destruction of part of Eastwood Church wall and against the thought of having 52,500 flights a year as well as running night flights for freight planes.

SAEN is worried; worried about the apathy that a lot of residents have; worried about the effects of noise and air pollution on our resident’s physical and mental health; worried about the potential loss of a church which is older than Southend itself; worried about jamming up the two main approach roads of the Borough with extra traffic; worried that a project which could be short-lived in view of failing oil supplies will spell devastation for parts of the town; worried that 70,000 people under the flight path may actually be in danger from the threat of airport expansion.
I am sorry, Mr Jarvis, but you are wrong on all counts in your letter. Please check out the SAEN website at http://www.saen.org.uk.

Kiti Theobald
Westcliff

Tags: ,
Posted in Letters, Media, Yellow Advertiser | No Comments »

A response to Mr Jarvis’ latest tirade

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Mr Jarvis,

In reply to your e-mail, I will have to begin by saying that it was not my intention to flatter you with comments, but only to inform. I have taken your points in the same order in which you wrote to the web-site.

May I ask you to outline the economic benefits that you feel the airport extension will bring to the town? As stated already on our website, most money will be transported off to the destination of the passenger. This airport will be much more of a return destination than a place to visit, given that a great deal of the town is comprised of empty office blocks and disused industrial estates, not to mention the dreadful state of the roads which seem to have been neglected in favour of multi-million-pound ‘road improvements’.

You say ‘…even if it does not amount to 6,700 jobs…’ Does this mean that you finally admit that this is a fictitious total?

The ‘unemployed of Southend’ have been fed unrealistic hopes of jobs in the rush to get the airport expanded, and any Council worth its salt would balance the needs of jobs against the reality of noise, pollution, night flights and road congestion. The Council, however, seems to want to be in charge of a City now, and we all know that cities tend to become overcrowded, noisy, polluted and expensive to live in. Expanding the airport will not help to solve City problems, but rather exacerbate them.

The longer runway will mean that planes flying to the south-west will be able to take off further along and it has been estimated that some aircraft will be only 70 feet above the rooftops of the nearest houses. The ILS at the north-east will assist with landings from the south-west, but these will be less than from the opposite direction simply because of the prevailing wind direction. It was not considered necessary to put one in before now.

Have you confused your ‘…thousands of residents demonstrating.’ with the news from Tunisia and Libya? I must say that most protests against small-time developments such as this will normally attract small numbers of protesters, and I cannot recall any recent local protests where thousands have been noted. Perhaps you would like to point them out to me. We have not thus far organised any major demonstrations.

But I am not in the business of making comparisons. Nor do I really want to spend a great deal of time answering points that have already been made. You are not correct in your assumption that the church is happy with the changes to the front graveyard wall, and that is the reason that the church authority has decided to hold a meeting of parishioners, petitioners and objectors on Friday. You say you are guessing that most of the objectors are SAEN members. Well, guess away, Mr Jarvis! I personally have no idea who the other objectors are, only that as a parishioner of St Laurence myself, I have every right to comment on these changes on my doorstep. SAEN published no urgent appeal to members to object to this part of the Planning Application.

‘Without the runway extension, there would be no restrictions on night flights…’ This sounds a little as if we have been offered an ultimatum by Stobart’s. Do you think it is right that a businessman, however prosperous and powerful he considers himself, should challenge the Council and the people of Southend in this way? Is he above the law, or beyond the voice of reason to act in this way? The Council have said that the subject of night flights will be on the agenda of a Council meeting to be held soon, so perhaps the voice of reason has reached their ears at last, and the question of night flights will be resolved.

I hope you feel that this has answered you latest tirade, Mr Jarvis. If you have any proof that what we say or print on the web-site is untrue or misleading, please let us know, but if the truth hurts, I am sorry you do not like it.

K Theobald

Tags: ,
Posted in Letters, Pro-aviation Lobby | No Comments »

Truth is stranger than fiction

Tuesday, March 1st, 2011

I feel that I must respond to the vitriolic letter written by the embittered Lee Jarvis in last week’s Yellow Advertiser, but I shall try to do so without launching a personal attack.

Mr Jarvis accuses SAEN of telling lies, avoiding the truth, making things up and of not really being worried about the residents of Southend, and by implication, accuses Denis Walker of the same. Truth is stranger than fiction and SAEN members, committee and followers have kept a strict regard for the truth ever since their first meeting. People at that meeting were pleased that someone had volunteered to take on the case of the airport extension, that spokesmen would be dealing with the authorities, writing letters, organising leaflet drops, allocating finance to where it can do the most good, researching information, and above all, putting the residents of Southend first.

Sometimes lies go under the title of ‘spin’; the spin created by the Council and not contradicted by anyone at the airport would suggest that there ill be 6,700 jobs available when the airport expands. This is very far from the truth. Southampton, quoted by Mr Jarvis, has nearly 2 million passengers a year and ‘more than 1200(people) in 30 different companies of whom 200 are BAA Southampton employees’ (BAA Southampton).

I do understand the desperate need for jobs in Southend, as elsewhere, in this current economic climate, but this inflated figure is not to be believed. It includes the forecast for jobs to be created within the Saxon Business Park to be created as part of the Rochford/Southend Area Action Plan, of which the airport extension was only a part. Taking the planning application out of the Action Plan seems to have brought the rest of that particular initiative to a dead halt, as nothing more has been said about it for well over a year.

Mr Jarvis says that ‘most residents want the runway extension to happen’, but if this is so, where are all the letters of support that they could have sent to the Council when the proposition was first made? The letters sent to the Council during the Consultation were overwhelmingly against the extension, against the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, against the destruction of part of Eastwood Church wall and against the thought of having 52,500 flights a year as well as running night flights for freight planes.

SAEN is worried; worried about the apathy that a lot of residents have; worried about the effects of noise and air pollution on our resident’s physical and mental health; worried about the potential loss of a church which is older than Southend itself; worried about jamming up the two main approach roads of the Borough with extra traffic; worried that a project which could be short-lived in view of failing oil supplies will spell devastation for parts of the town; worried that 70,000 people under the flight path may actually be in danger from the threat of airport expansion.
I am sorry, Mr Jarvis, but you are wrong on all counts in your letter. Please check out the SAEN website at http://www.saen.org.uk.

Kiti Theobald
Westcliff-on-Sea

Tags: ,
Posted in Letters | 3 Comments »

Little to be gained from airport runway extension

Wednesday, December 15th, 2010

Congratulations to John Geoghegan on his article which presented both sides of the argument on the proposed Southend Airport runway extension (Dec 9).

But there are comments to be made on the statements by councillor Anna Waite. Her blog expresses the wish that Southend Airport would “start offering flights”. Flights have already been on offer for some time, but the prices and times are not competitive enough for the service to expand. It has been cheaper to drive to Stansted or Heathrow.

Other airports manage on far fewer night flights than Stobart seems to require. The number quoted in the planning permission is far in excess of what we experience now, and does not include planes which are not restricted by current rules.

These will be the smaller, noisier and more polluting planes Ms Waite fears.

She also mentions the “constant road closures”

in Eastwoodbury Lane every time a plane takes off, but we know this will not apply once the new road has been built, which councillor Holdcroft says will go ahead even if the runway is not extended.

She mentions the kudos of a fully-functioning airport and supply chains across the area, but it is still doubtful whether the modifications to our roads will make as much difference to travelling times as expected, and the kudos will, I am sure, affect few beyond the council itself.

The pier is mentioned in the blog as one of the economic drivers of the town, but so little investment has gone into it over the last 30 years one would almost believe the council would be glad if it fell down and ceased to be a problem.

The space-age structure on the south station beggars belief as it appears to have no specific function, and certainly will not keep visitors dry or warm, any more than the proposed open air theatre will.

Kiti Theobald
Brendon Way
Westcliff

Tags:
Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Airport slow on security move

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

How interesting to see Southend Airport has a plan to improve security at the new terminal.

Soon after the car-bomb attack in June, 2007, at Glasgow Airport, measures were put in place to prevent such attacks at all major airports. Southend has taken almost three years to react.

Your article (Jan 27) demonstrated the confidence felt by airport owners that expansion will go ahead, but fails to mention the anticipated rise in oil prices that will follow the decline of oil production, which could affect the number of planes able to fly from any airport, least of all from a small one like Southend.

Ted Lewin’s proposal to end night flights, made at the developmental control committee, sent councillors and advisers looking for answers from one another. The only answer given was that it would cost the airport money!

Running services all night costs money.

Employing a night security staff would cost less in monetary terms, and would mean thousands of people could sleep all night without interruption.

Finally, will someone explain the “potential investment from the Olympics” mentioned by MP James Duddridge.

Olympians and supporters know London City Airport is nearer the Olympic site, and will spend their money in London. How does that benefit Southend?

Kiti Theobald
Brendon Way
Westcliff

Tags: ,
Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »

Night flights and noise

Monday, November 16th, 2009

Dear Councillor,

I am writing to you as a member of the Development Control Committee with my thoughts on two topics; night flights and noise from aircraft.

The current limit on night flights is 915 per month, and we are told that IF the extension is allowed to go ahead the figure will drop to 120 per month. This figure does not mention what type of aircraft we can expect to hear, whether they will be in a regular pattern, or whether aircraft which register below a certain number of decibels will be included in this number or simply added to it. Also, when London City Airport is closed for fog, or from sheer weight of numbers of flights, Southend airport will be used, will the airport have to say “Sorry, we have used out Quota – go and land somewhere else!” or will we in fact have more than the quota landing here?

It seems also as if the Airport and Stobart want to sound as if they are doing us a favour by ‘reducing’ the number to 120 when that is far more than are currently flying at night!

Southampton Airport has 10 night flights each month, and London City none at all as far as I can ascertain. If we are to model ourselves on Southampton, why should we not have the same controls as they have, and if London City doesn’t need night flights because there are already plenty of night flights operating from Heathrow and Stansted to cater for people from this area, via the excellent X30 coach service, then why should be having night flights at all.

Furthermore, if people are not travelling at night, then the flights will either be for Maintenance and repair or for cargo. Since we have Mr A Welch’s word that the Stobart Company is not interested in extending their cargo base here, then that only leaves maintenance planes which surely are able to fly in during daylight hours, so I repeat, why 120 night flights per month?

Remember, your decision will not only affect those living under the flight path in Leigh and Southend, but those in Rochford as well, since there is a move to direct as many flights as possible in the other direction to the one generally used at present.

My second point is the noise from aircraft during the day. At present, this is fairly low-key compared to the amount of noise generated in the past, particularly during the Sixties and Eighties. I must begin by saying that at that time, most people were used to the sound of planes locally and did not realise the potential impact of continual noise on health and well-being. If I may quote from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology ‘Postnote’ (June, 2003)

  1. current aircraft noise can affect the quality of life of half a million people living close to UK airports
  2. increases in air traffic could outstrip technological progress in making individual flights quieter and so worsen the noise climate around many of the UK’s airports over the next thirty years.
  3. As a result, more people could be affected by sleep disturbance, annoyance and possible health effects.
  4. Aircraft noise could constrain airport expansion unless substantial noise reductions are made.

Noise studies have been made and substantiated. Children at Blenheim School have their lessons constantly interrupted by the noise of planes at present, as the school, with its 450 pupils lies directly under the flight path. They no doubt live close to the school and their sleep pattern is directed by the night flights. I know from experience that it can be a difficult school to teach in – could the reason be that these children are stressed by outside influences as well as having to cope with the National Curriculum?

And yet, the only noise study that the airport has undertaken has been simulated by a computer, generating an estimate. There is no such thing as a ‘quiet’ aeroplane, and we stand to be bombarded by night and day.
Much has been said about people living under the flight path from choice, but as a Councillor, perhaps you might like to find out how many Council properties lie under the flight path at Southend or Rochford. People who have no choice about where they live will have been directed to these areas, where perhaps others would choose NOT to live.

Many of you on the Development Committee have chosen to live in Thorpe Bay and Shoeburyness, some distance from the airport and its problems. Perhaps if Boris Island gets under weigh, you too will be facing the problems of noise from aircraft and night flights with no restrictions. Will you choose to move house then?

Those who do hear the planes flying over their houses are not impressed by the idea that during peak times, there could be a flight every seven-and-a-half minutes, be it small noisy Cessna, maintenance flight or commercial flight.

Those who have moved here in the last fifteen years have only ever known a small quantity of flights, and those of us who have lived here for a long time deplore the idea of having to move because the noise makes life intolerable.

Remember, your decision will not only affect those living under the flight path in Leigh and Southend, but those in Rochford as well, some thirty thousand houses, with occupation in excess of 75,000 people. Is this something you want to be responsible for, or do you feel that the Government should call the application in…?

Sincerely Yours

Kiti Theobald

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

Meeting was no disappointment

Wednesday, May 29th, 2002

I HAD to write to articulate my dismay at the apparent biased views in the Standard article titled “Airport arguments” (March 22).

The public meeting did not leave us disappointed as implied by your article. It was just such a shame that the only two councillors seen at the meeting left early.

Brian Houssart was indeed at the meeting and said nothing about his or the council’s views on airport expansion.

The only issue he raised was one of safety at the meeting. It is understood he left the meeting early.

The meeting itself has been pronounced a success by the committee of CAAG and the majority of those who attended, including some of the airport staff, who congratulated us on a well-run meeting.

There was an enormous sense of grievance in the hall about the way that ordinary people are treated by the airport authorities and local council alike.

It’s hardly surprising that emotions ran high. The meeting gave as many people as possible a chance to make their views known, as the session “from the floor” was about 90 minutes long.

This gave most people who wished to speak a good opportunity to do so. Our co-ordinator, Jon Fuller, made an excellent job of watching for hands raised, assisted by the others on the front bench.

Finally, it is surprising that someone from the Rochford end of the runway supports the expansion plans?

It won’t be St Andrew’s church, faced with removal, that stands in the way of progress and won’t be her house that has to be demolished for the run-off area.

KITI THEOBALD
CAAG Chairman
Brendon Way, Westcliff

Tags: , ,
Posted in Letters, Media, Southend Standard | No Comments »

Unanswered questions on airport and church’s move

Thursday, April 4th, 2002

YOUR accurate report of the public meeting about the St Laurence Church and the expansion of Southend Airport (Mar 18) quoted airport director Roger Campbell as saying people want to fly from Southend.

This may be true, but the majority do not understand that the local infrastructure will not be able to withstand the pressures this will produce.

As chairman of the Church and Airport Action Group, I have had letters and e-mails from outraged people with nothing good to say about the proposals.

A number of members attended the last of the airport’s presentations on March 16. It did not seem well-attended or organised.

The presentation consisted of a video showing buildings being moved and how this was achieved, a couple of boards showing in sketchy detail how it is intended to move the Church and a large aerial photograph of the airport in which few details were visible, in front of which Mr Campbell was gallantly answering questions. There was no information about the demolition of houses or night flights.

Assuming the airport expanded, where were the reassurances for people in the Somerset estate, who live with aircraft too close to their heads?

The flightpath continues over Leigh and Canvey – all these areas would be disturbed. The flights, laden with passengers, luggage and extra fuel, would mean a lower flightpath than that taken by the unloaded planes that now come in.

Where was the presentation that told us how the log-jammed roads would be improved to take the thousands of people who want to fly from Southend? We are told there will be no night flights, but we are not told what will happen in the summer when airline delays are the norm.

The people need to know exactly what the plans are, what the effects will be, what the alternatives are. Several of our letters have mentioned the idea of a referendum.

KITI M THEOBALD
CAAG Chairman,
Address supplied

Tags: ,
Posted in Echo, Letters, Media | No Comments »