Posts Tagged ‘SAEN’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Rochford Council’s position on runway extension planning application

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Dear Mr Scrutton,

No doubt you will be incensed at the temerity of the Stobart group in submitting an application for planning permission to extend the runway at Southend Airport part-way through the Joint Area Action Plan process being conducted at the time by your Council and Southend Borough Council to decide joint policy on, among other things, that very issue.

I trust therefore that Rochford District Council’s Development Control Committee will be expressing in the strongest terms the Council’s anger at this move and insist that Southend Borough Council defers the decision until after the JAAP process has been concluded.

I presume also that the Council will want to take the earliest opportunity to instruct the Government Office for the East of England that it is their desire to have the application called in for determination by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, John Denham MP following a Public Inquiry at which the Council and all other parties will be given the opportunity to test the airport’s various assertions as to the benefits of the runway extension and put forward their own views.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

–
Denis Walker
Press Officer, Stop Airport Extension Now

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

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

Government response to request for call-in

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
DAVID AMESS MP

Member of Parliament for Southend West
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA

Mrs Kiti Theobald
Chairman
Stop Airport Expansion Now
PO Box 5909
Southend-on-Sea MLO
Short St
Southend-on-sea
Essex
SS1 1AA

18 November 2009

Our ref: SW2411

Dear Kiti,

Further to our recent correspondence, I have received a response from Paul Clark MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport.

Please find enclosed a copy of his reply. I will be interested to hear what you think. If you have any questions about the letter, just let me know.

With all good wishes,

Yours ever,

David Amess MP

Department for
Transport

From the Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State

Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Tel: 020 7944 3082
Fax: 020 7944 4492
E-Mail: paul.clark@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: AA/PC/026331/09
Your Ref: SW2411

David Amess MP
House of Commons
LONDON SW1A 0AA

16 NOV 2009

Dear David,

Thank you for your letter of 12 October to Andrew Adonis. You raised concerns from your constituent about the possible expansion of Southend Airport. I am replying as I have Ministerial responsibility for this issue.

Primary responsibility for planning policy and development control on the airport site lies with Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Rochford Council. They are the statutory planning authorities. It is for them to decide, in the first instance, what form of development may be permitted. In making their decisions, they will have regard to statutory development plans and other material considerations. The Secretary of State only intervenes in the most exceptional cases. To do so more often would undermine the responsibility given to local planning authorities.

The Secretary of State is very selective about calling in planning applications. Generally, he only takes this step if planning issues beyond local importance are involved and if they merit a strategic overview that is difficult to achieve at a local level. Every case is considered on its own merits.

Responsibility for preparing the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) for Southend Airport is shared by both planning authorities. I understand that when early versions of the JAAP were published for public consultation, the planning authorities included reference to possible extension of the runway.

I am not aware that work on the JAAP has been suspended. However, as an unforseen planning application has been made to extend the runway, I think it is reasonable for the local planning authorities to develop a contingency plan for taking work forward, depending on the decision reached by the Development Control Committee. There will still be a requirement for public consultation on the JAAP, whatever form it takes, before it is submitted to the Secretary of State. Full Public Examination of the JAAP will then be carried out by a Planning Inspector.

Government Office for the East of England is monitoring the situation closely. If the Development Control Committee is minded to approve the planning application a decision to refer the application to the Secretary of State to determine whether it should be called in or not will be made at that stage.

I hope this is helpful.

PAUL CLARK

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government, Letters | 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 »

New Strategy

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

Hello to all members and correspondents once again!

The three meetings held in Rochford, Eastwood and Leigh that have been held to inform the public of what is going on and to answer burning questions from all, seem to have gone extremely well. I hope that you were able to attend at least one of them to judge for yourselves!
We continue to try to get the whole process ‘called in’ by the Government, as it is such a huge topic for people more used to making decisions on much, much smaller planning issues, but we are going to ask you to contact all the Councillors who are involved in the Planning Process so that they, too, can be as well-informed as you are. There is a list of all these people below this letter.
There are so many concerns that it would be a daunting exercise to address them all at once, not only for you, the writer, but also for the Councillor who will read your letters.
The plan is to take 2 or 3 issues at a time and filter them in gradually over the next few weeks. If we are consistent in this approach, we can make a real difference to their knowledge and the process itself.
If you are able to make free phone calls, that would be good, because you can use the opportunity to discuss with the councillors over the phone. If you would rather e-mail, then please do so, and if you would rather write, the addresses of all the developmental control officers are here also; just make contact in some way!
Most correspondents have identified noise and night flights as problems which concern them most, so let’s target them first. All the arguments you need will already be on the web site, and I am sure that you will be able to personalise them to your own specifications. Just concentrate on those two issues for now and contact as many of the Councillors on the list as you can. Concerted effort won’t be wasted effort, I can assure you, and you have been a brilliant team to work with this far. Keep it up, folks!

Kiti and Committee

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

Airport given a hard time at Leigh meeting

Friday, November 13th, 2009
LTC Public Meeting, 13th Nov 2009

LTC Public Meeting, 13th Nov 2009

Leigh Town Council held a meeting this evening to give the public an opportunity to find out more about the airport’s expansion plans and what impact they would have particularly for people living under the flight path in Leigh. Around 180 people attended.

The panel was made up of Rob Matthews and Alistair Welch of Southend Airport, Nigel Holdcroft and Andy Lewis of Southend Borough Council and Denis Walker of SAEN and South East Essex Friends of the Earth.

Roger Wood, a campaigner from LADACAN (the Luton Airport equivalent of SAEN) and the Aviation Environment Federation had accepted an invitation to appear on the panel two days previously, but his invitation was withdrawn a few hours later by Leigh Town Council on the basis that he didn’t live in Leigh.

The airport revealed that during that afternoon, they had concluded negotiations with Network Rail and National Express to build their proposed station at a cost of around £12m. No other new information was forthcoming from them.

David Amess, MP for Southend West was unable to attend the meeting but presented his apologies and a statement in which he asked for the audience to vote on whether they wanted the decision to go to a Public Inquiry. However, there was confusion among the panellists (including those from Southend Borough Council) as to whether it was necessary to call the planning application in before or after the decision was made. Mr Amess’s statement made specific reference to calling the application in after it had been decided by Southend Council’s Development Control Committee and it is possible that he was only talking in terms of an appeal if planning permission was refused. We will investigate this matter further and keep you informed. Update: We now have a copy of Mr Amess’s statement. Analysis to follow shortly.

Towards the end of the meeting Cllr Alan Crystall, a member of Southend Council’s Development Control Committee (DCC), stood up and gave his view that the runway should not be extended. This would have barred him from taking part in the DCC’s decision were it not for the fact that he had already been barred for making comments opposing the expansion previously. He brought up the matter of the Government’s lack of support for expansion to 2 million passengers per year, which was then challenged by Alistair Welch, whose documentation indicates support from the Government.

However, Denis Walker then read out the following statement made by the East of England Regional Assembly in their response to Phase 2 of the JAAP:

The JAAP does include the support and identified role of the airport contained in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper (ATWP). However, contrary to JAAP policy LS1, neither the ATWP nor the East of England Plan identifies growth at London Southend of up to two million passengers per annum (mppa). The two mppa figure was an assumption used in the demand and impact appraisal work and was based on the maximum use of the runways at the major airports and no new runway capacity.

Given that the ATWP supported new runways at Stansted and Heathrow, the role for Southend that is supported was not for two mppa, but to meet local demand and the needs of business aviation. This is reflected in policy E7 and paragraph 4.31 of the East of England Plan.

This is just one example of the numerous factual inaccuracies to be found in the Airport’s planning application and we will share others as they come to light.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Meetings | 1 Comment »

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 »

John Williams: Chasing an unanswered letter

Tuesday, October 27th, 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

27th October 2009

Mr. J. Williams,
Head of Legal and Democratic Services,
Southend Borough Council,
Civic Centre,
Victoria Avenue,
Southend-on-Sea,
SS2 6ER

Dear Mr Williams,

Please provide a response to our letter of the 18th September related to Southend Airport.

Additionally we enquire as follows-

(1) Your recently announced agreement on airport control proposals

(a) Please give reasons for supposing that the raft of exceptions to the monthly night flying cap of 120 will not render the cap meaningless in permitting a variety of aircraft to fly without restriction.

We refer in particular to QC (Quota Count) exempted aircraft which can be both turbo and jet propelled in emitting a certified (unmeasured in operation) EPNdb of 86 for each aircraft.

Whilst marginally quieter, that advantage will be entirely lost with no cap on numbers- the major weakness found in a purely noise oriented quota count system.

These movements will be interlinked with the noise generated by the other rather louder fixed and rotary craft contained both within the cap and without as the other exceptions to it.

We are also unable to reconcile an average of 3 passenger flights a night in the 30 minutes immediately after the commencement of night flying restrictions with the claim that those restrictions are in place at 23.00 hrs.

This indicates a potentially worse situation than contained in the existing lease arrangements and you seem prepared to risk granting the extension permission on the strength of it being ‘this or nothing’.

We ask for your detailed argument in allaying our fears as above.

Please do not refer us to the airport for an explanation since, as residents, we are entitled to expect that appropriate independent research was conducted by yourselves before reaching any such agreement in terms of your duty of care.

(b) A major benefit claimed for residents in the heavily congested areas of Eastwood and Leigh is the preferential noise routing to the north east wherever safety permits.

We are entirely surprised that this measure has received the approval of a majority of Rochford Councillors and request your confirmation that this is the case.

(2) Conduct of the JAAP

We understand that the Development Control Committee will be authorised to meet to consider the application for the runway extension on the 11th January 2010 therefore isolating the extension from the JAAP process.

This Plan was conceived within the statutory Local Development Framework, always referenced the airport extension, related policy was provided within the preferred options document and the community never given to doubt that justification of Council actions would be tested at an ultimate independent and comprehensive public examination.

We give our reasons as follows since we are a group campaigning against the runway extension and our correspondence with you is (and has been) in that context.

(1) our letter to you of the 18th April 2009 at item (3) referred to the reasons given for the 2003 planning refusal and itemised the contravened policies in particular BE7 and B1W9.

Your related response to both dated 18th May 2009 (item 3 (c) and (d)) confirmed that ‘policies within the JAAP are likely to supersede this in due course, subject to a decision by an independent government inspector.

(2) Your letter of the 13th May (item 1 –Environmental Impact Assessment) referred us to policy LS7 ‘Operation of new runway ‘ which states that planning permission for the new runway will be supported subject to conditions on (amongst other things) ….the operation of cargo flights outside the hours specified….will be controlled by an agreed noise quota……As cargo and freight movements are contained within policy it is possible they will be raised as a matter to be debated at an Examination in Public, nevertheless,this is a decision which will be made by the independent planning inspector based on representations received and other supporting evidence.

This letter went on to explain Town and Country planning regulations at item (2) ‘the conduct of the JAAP’.

Under regulation 30 the development plan document is submitted to the Secretary of State (post phase 3) and two statements will be produced and be made public setting out the following:

First Statement

  1. which bodies and persons the LPA invited to make representations under regulation 25 or 26
  2. how those bodies were invited under either of those regulations
  3. a summary of the main issues raised by the representations made pursuant to either regulation
  4. how any representations made pursuant to either of those regulations have been taken into account

We think the above sufficient to make the point that to have subtracted the extension (surely a ‘main’ issue) from the statement at this juncture would make a total mockery of (1) to (4) above.

Should you wish for further illustrations to support our original confidence that the Plan would be examined intact then we can arrange to provide them.

Unless the Government Office for the East of England ‘calls-in’ the application there will have been no independent public test of soundness of the proposal and the majority of consultation objections from both phases ignored (the second is not even published in summary form as yet).

We therefore ask if you will initiate your own full and immediate public enquiry to assist the Development Control Commiittee in appreciating the entire dimension of argument before reaching any conclusion.

This would also alleviate the undoubted impatience displayed by the operators in submitting their application now.

We seek your advices on all matters raised.

Yours sincerely,

Kiti Theobald (Chairman)

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »