The runway extension is a key part of ambitious plans to transform Southend into a modern regional passenger airport in time for the 2012 London Olympics.

The inquiry will only look at the council decision to block Eastwoodbury Lane and reroute traffic, so the runway can be made 1,000 feet longer.

The closure was approved by the council in January last year, when the extension was given planning permission.

However, a “stopping-up order” is needed to block the road and if anyone objects, it automatically triggers a public inquiry. [This is completely false. SAEN has spoken to Neil Crass at the National Transport Casework Team at GO North East and confirmed that the decision to call a Public Inquiry was taken by his office and there was no duty to have an Inquiry merely because someone had objected. The fact that they have called a Public Inquiry is proof that there are serious unanswered questions to be answered about the proposals.]

Campaign Group, Stop Airport Extension Nw, said the minister’s decision had arisen from objections from its members [and other local residents].

Andrew Meddle, the council’s head of planning, said: “The airport operator carried out a public consultation over its proposals to close the old road [This is also false. The consultation was organised by the Government Office for the North East (GO North East), not the Airport.] and the Secretary of State must call an inquiry in the event of a single objection. [Also also wrong. See above.]

“A major factor in this case is the council has granted the airport operator planning permission to construct a new road in advance of any closure. A condition of that permission was the old road could only be closed once the new road was complete.”

Airport director Alastair Welch, said: “The inquiry will be confined to the issues raised by the stopping up, not the wider issues of airport development, the latter having already been permitted.”

The Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, has called for an investigation into the proposed closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, which was previously approved by Southend Council.

Airport bosses are looking to replace the road with a new link road, between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, to allow a 300m extension of the runway to go ahead.

Managing director Alastair Welch said staff were working to ensure the airport would still be operational for the 2012 Olympics.

He explained: “We have carefully planned the airport’s development and we are working with the appropriate authorities over a number of matters and can confirm that we remain on programme to complete the redevelopment in time for the Olympics.”

Southend Council is contributing to the cost of upgrading the specification of the new road. A spokesman said a public inquiry had been expected.

Head of planning and transport, Andrew Meddle, explained: “The Secretary of State’s decision to call a public inquiry into this matter is not unexpected.

“The airport operators carried out a public consultation over the proposals to close the old road and the Secretary of State is duty bound to call an enquiry in the event of a single objection.” [This is completely false. The consultation was organised by the Government Office for the North East (GO North East), not the Airport. SAEN has spoken to Neil Crass at the National Transport Casework Team at GO North East and confirmed that the decision to call a Public Inquiry was taken by his office and there was no duty to have an Inquiry merely because someone had objected. The fact that they have called a Public Inquiry is proof that there are serious unanswered questions to be answered about the proposals.]

The decision for a public inquiry came following objections from residents and campaign group, Stop Airport Expansion [Extension] Now.

Campaign group spokesman, Denis Walker, said: “This is the first time that the runway extension development will receive public scrutiny, so it’s excellent news for our campaign.

“We are confident that in the cold light of day, the justification for closing Eastwoodbury Lane to enable the runway extension doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

“The economic, environmental and social costs all outweigh any benefit and we look forward to the opportunity to explain this to a Government Inspector.”

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.

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

TWO Leigh Liberal Democrat councillors won a ‘battle’ to delay the airport expansion scheme – but now wait to see if they have won the ‘war’.

Couns Alan Crystall and Peter Wexham both wrote to John Denham, the Communities Secretary of State, along with, it is understood a letter from the campaign group, SAEN – Stop Airport [Extension] Now – and he has said no expansion should commence until he has studied all the papers and decided whether to leave it with Southend Council to decide or order a public inquiry.

In the meantime, though, Southend Council’s development control committee decided last week by 14 votes to three to give their approval to the airport’s expansion scheme application – which includes a 300m extension of the runway to enable it to take passenger jets.

Now the airport, council and objectors wait to see what Mr Denham says.

He has promised to deal with the issue quickly – but all sides are mindful that there is only a three-month ‘window’ for him to announce his decision.

An election is likely on May 6 – but it will be called at least three weeks earlier, and if he has not made his decision by then it could be some months before a new administration gets round to looking at the issue.

In his letter to Southend Council – published in full on page 14 – Mr Denham said because he had received representations against the plan he had asked to see all the papers.

Coun Crystall’s intervention was particularly relevant because he is one of the leading planning spokesmen in the Eastern Region.

Even if Southend Council approves the plan to extend the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane, it will still need the go-ahead from Government Minister John Denham.

Mr Denham, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, will either approve the plan or call it in for a public inquiry.

The council’s development control committee is meeting today to discuss the plans. If the committee refuses the application, the plans are dead. [Not strictly true, as the airport could appeal the decision.]

But if it is approved, the decision is put on hold until the Secretary of State decides he will not intervene or he decides to “call in” the application.

This means there would be a public inquiry about the plan, chaired by a Government planning inspector.

The Secretary of State is not required to reach a decision with any specific timescale, but aims to deal with it “as quickly as possible”.

Anti-expansion pressure group Stop Airport [Extension] Now welcomed the news.

Spokesman Denis Walker said: “The direction means it’s much more likely there will be a public inquiry and that’s good news.

“This is what we’ve been asking for ever since the planning application was submitted.

“Leaving this decision to Southend Council means there wouldn’t be proper scrutiny of it.

“Without a public inquiry, there would be no cross-examination of evidence or full scrutiny in public.

“This major decision would be left entirely in the hands of a process designed to approve extensions to houses.”

Inquiry delay would be ‘frustrating’

THE leader of Southend Council said he is concerned plans to expand the airport could be delayed by the Government’s decision.

Tory leader Nigel Holdcroft said: “There was always the possibility the Government would issue the directive, therefore, it doesn’t come as a great surprise.

“Obviously, the application will still be considered on its merits by the development control team.

“Hopefully, the Secretary of State reviews the situation promptly and decides as quickly as possible to call the matter in if the committee approves it.

“If it’s called in for a public inquiry, it would lead to a significant delay which the airport organisers would find very frustrating.”

Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Southend West, Peter Welch, said he welcomed the Government’s decision.

About John Denham

JOHN Denham is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Mr Denham, 56, has been Labour MP for Southampton Itchen since 1992 and has been the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government since June.

He recently hit the headlines for claiming class was a more significant factor in 21st-century Britain than race.

For: 20th January 2010
Demonstrators oppose Southend Airport runway extension

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
Demonstrators gather on the steps of Southend Civic Centre prior to the afternoon’s Development Control Committee meeting. This meeting will decide whether to approve a planning application to extend the runway at Southend Airport.

When: 10:30am, 20th January 2010
Venue: Southend Civic Centre, Victoria Avenue, Southend-on-Sea
Contact: Denis Walker, Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now – denis@saen.org.uk

At 2pm on 20th January, Southend Borough Council’s Development Control Committee will meet to decide whether to grant planning permission for a longer runway at London Southend Airport. Airport owners, Stobart, want the extension to enable growth of the airport to two million passengers per year.

However, on Monday, the Government Office for the East of England issued an Article 14 Direction to Southend Borough Council, requiring them to refer the application to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham MP. This Direction prevents the Council from issuing their decision on whether or not to grant planning permission until the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consider whether the application is one that he should call in for his own determination.

“This is welcome news,” said Denis Walker, Press Officer for SAEN – the campaign group formed to oppose the lengthening of the runway at Southend Airport. “Ever since the planning application was submitted, we have been calling for a Public Inquiry to investigate it properly and this is the first step to getting one.”

“The planning application was submitted part way through the consultation process for a Joint Area Action Plan to determine the future of the airport and its environs. We argue that until this Action Plan is finalised, any decision to extend the runway is premature.”

ENDS.

Notes to Editors

“Stop Airport Extension Now” (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.

For further information:

• Contact Denis Walker, Press Officer SAEN (Stop Airport Extension Now), denis@saen.org.uk
• Visit the SAEN website – http://saen.org.uk/

Firstly, there is the evidence of the second phase of Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) consultation, which ignored the majority of respondents to Phase 1 and nominated the least popular proposal as the Councils’ preferred option.[1] The full analysis of the Phase 2 consultation will not be published until after the Development Control Committee have made their decision. Were it not for SAEN’s[2] Freedom of Information request, which was only granted on appeal to the Information Commissioner, not even the raw numbers of objectors and supporters would be available[3] and yet they show that well over three quarters of respondents opposed the runway extension.

Then there is the evidence of the shambolic state of the planning application file where legitimate objections were being discounted for no discernible reason, objections and invalid responses were being counted as support and supporting comments were being counted twice.[4] There was even one example where a respondent had supplied nothing more than their name and address and was counted as supporting the application.

We now also have the evidence of the Officers’ Report[5], published on 13th January, which recommends that the planning application be approved – in many cases solely on the evidence of the Airport owners with no independent analysis. The report is biased in its analysis of the comments received. It says that “strong support has been shown by a number of local employers” and names seven examples, six of which are in the aviation industry. No details are provided about companies that objected to the planning application.

The Officers’ Report refers to “The Planning System – General Principles”[6] which “advises that unless the proposed development is so significant it would prejudice [a Development Plan Document, such as the JAAP] a refusal on prematurity grounds should not be necessary.”[7] However, the extension of the runway at Southend Airport is the central tenet of the proposals detailed in Phase 2 of the JAAP consultation. A decision to approve the planning application would therefore prejudice the JAAP. This means that the planning application must be rejected to allow the JAAP process to run its course. The Report acknowledges that the development under consideration in the planning application is “significant”[8] then immediately goes on to dismiss it as “only one aspect of the development of the airport…” and proceeds to advise Councillors that “It is not considered the proposal should be refused on grounds of prematurity.”[9]

The Development Control Committee meets to decide the planning application at 2pm on Wednesday 20th January at Southend Civic Centre.

ENDS.

Notes for Editors

[1] “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.” – Analysis of responses to Phase 1 of JAAP Consultation, page 15: http://www.rochford.gov.uk/PDF/JAAP_%20issues_and_options_summary_consultation_response.pdf

[2] “Stop Airport Extension Now” (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.

[3] http://www.rochford.gov.uk/pdf/JAAP_representations_summary.pdf

[4] SAEN’s concerns have been outlined in a letter to the Council at http://www.saen.org.uk/2010/01/errors-in-planning-depts-handling-of-the-planning-application/ For privacy, the letter has been edited to remove the names of respondents. The planning application (ref 09/01960/FULM) comments files are available to view at Southend Borough Council by appointment. Call the Southend Borough Council Planning Department for an appointment on 01702 215328

[5] http://minutes.southend.gov.uk/akssouthend/images/att16846.doc

[6] http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147396.pdf

[7] Point 4.1.35 of [4]

[8] Point 4.1.36 of [4]

[9] Point 4.1.37 of [4]

For further information:

* Call Denis Walker, Press Officer, SAEN (Stop Airport Extension Now)
* Visit the SAEN website – http://saen.org.uk/

Having viewed the Planning Application comments files this morning we would like to draw a number of worrying errors to your attention. There may well be others that we have not spotted as we didn’t have time to review every single letter. However, we believe that the errors we have found raise serious concerns about the way this planning application has been handled by your department and that the figures you have given for the number of objections and letters of support may well be inaccurate.

In the opinion of the SAEN committee, the issues detailed below seriously call into question Southend Council’s competence in handling this case and we most strongly urge the Government Office for the East of England to call this application in to enable proper scrutiny at a Public Inquiry.

1. The “Null Response” file

We asked for clarification on what “Null Response” means and were told that you had said that it was where a letter didn’t contain a full name and address. The file labelled “Null Response” apparently contained only letters of objection, some of which, granted, did not have an address given, but most of which *did* have a full name and address. The very first letter in that file had a full name and address, so it is difficult to see how this mistake could have been made.

Please explain why this file was labelled as “Null Response” when that is not what it contained.

2. The “No Objection” files

The files we were presented with had post-it notes attached to them which read either “Objection”, “No Objection” or “Null Response”. However, the figures you have given us break the responses down into “Objections”, “Supporting”, “No objections” and “Neutral”. Can you please explain how you decided which category a response fell into where it was not specifically marked as a letter of objection or support and why “Supporting” and “No objections” are mixed in the filing?

3. Null Responses in the “No Objection” files

We found a great many cases where people supporting or “not objecting” to the application did not supply a complete address but their letters were filed in the “No Objection” folders.

[9 names cited]

Why were these not filed in the “Null Response” folder and how can we be sure that they were not counted towards the “No Objection” or “Supporting” totals?

4. Objections filed as Support

We have found a number of specific examples where letters of objection have been filed as letters of support.

[6 names cited]

Some of these started by saying such things as “I support Southend Airport, but I do not support the extension of the runway.” These can therefore only be counted as objections to the planning application, which is specifically concerned with the extension of the runway. I recall Barbara Clark’s letter, which was handwritten, said “LETTER OF OBJECTION” at the top. Why were they filed as letters of support?

5. Double counting

We saw several examples of email messages in the “No Objection” file that had been printed twice and were in different parts of the file. It was obvious that they were the same message as they had the same time stamp and were identical.

[2 names cited]

How do we know that these have not been counted twice? Why were systems not put in place to ensure that duplication of this nature was not possible?

6. Comments from outside the area

I distinctly recall that when handling comments on the Priory Crescent scheme, the Council divided them up into comments from Southend residents and those outside the borough. Has this been done with the comments on this planning application? If so, please supply these figures. If not, why not? It was obvious from looking through the files that a large proportion of the comments of support came from outside the area, with conspicuously large contributions from Warrington and Cumbria. While some letters of objection came from outside the area, it was clearly a smaller proportion.

Given that the Development Control Committee meets on Wednesday next week, you will appreciate that a prompt response is required.

Two important things to tell you today; the first is that the Developmental Control Committee meeting is on the 20th January, and not the date that you may have seen in the Yellow Advertiser. This is the meeting at which the Planning Application will be discussed. It is at 2pm and is open to the public. I think it is important that you try to get there, although I appreciate that some of you may be at work. If your office is closed because of weather, please consider wrapping up as warm as you can and making the effort. If you can’t go yourself, ask your friends and neighbours or family to turn out in your place. This decision will affect them as much as at it will you, after all!

The second thing is the attachment with this e-mail; it is a reminder of the fact that you should all have written to John Denham to demand that this whole process is called in. The only fair way to get the process decided is for a Public Inquiry to take place, in public so that all may state their case openly. There would seem to be a strong feeling amongst many that the whole thing is a done deal, and if that suspicion is there it would surely be better if the Council, the Managing Director of the airport and your SAEN representatives could discuss the whole situation in the light of day, with the public able to judge for themselves. There is still time to write. Please do it if you haven’t already, write to David Amess, write to GO-EAST. Sorry to keep banging on, but this is vitally important!
Check the SAEN website for addresses you will need, and when you’ve finished all that, have a happy new year from kiti and the committee!

See you all on the 20th at the Southend Civic Centre!