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]

4. 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.
5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Miscellaneous
   The report to the JAAP Forum is recorded information, and its release for consideration is under the Freedom of Information Act.

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

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

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

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

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