Lib 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.