Leigh-on-Sea
Essex
Date: 15th April, 2005
Your ref: SS/JB/04/00639/REM
Dear Mr Scrutton
Expansion of Southend Airport
I apologise for being a little late in responding to your letter dated the 28th February. In view of the front page spread on the airport in last week’s Yellow Advertiser, however, it is perhaps as well that I was not a little quicker off the mark. I can at least write against the backcloth of the publicised objectives of the Airport Operators.
Now at least we have confirmation of our worst fears that within 10 years the aim is thfor there to be 20 passenger flights in and 20 out of Southend Airport each day carrying up to 1,000,000 passengers per annum. On an average of 1 flight per quarter of an hour my elementary arithmetical skills tell me we can expect 10 hours of low flying jet aircraft above our homes each day/night. This represents more than a three fold increase on the figure of 300,000 passengers quoted in your letter of the 8th December 2004. Hardly the “modest proposals for growth of passenger traffic” you referred to in the same letter. The first question that springs from this is “were you aware of the targets published in the Yellow Advertiser at the time of granting planning permission?” Seemingly not, to judge by the statements I have referred to above. If that is the case, and the Airport Operator is now seeking to change the dimensions of the playing field, is there a case for a re-think?
I have to say that I find your latest letter, albeit purporting to address the points I made, to be evasive in some parts and in others to be reluctant to accept responsibility for aspects where, as Council Tax payers, I feel we are entitled to expect Councils to look after our concerns.
But, let us start with a matter which is manifestly your responsibility. I refer to the decision to grant the application for the new terminal building, station, and visitors’ centre. Your letter of 4th December recognised that the environmental aspect resulting from the increase in traffic from its current level is an important consideration (how much more important in view of the latest figures!!) and indicated that safeguards had been built into the outline planning permission in the forms of a restriction of operating hours for the new terminal and of ongoing noise assessment. In my response dated 19th December 2004 I asked for details of the operating restrictions – we want to know between what hours of the day/night 40 flights will be allowed to fly as low as they like over our rooftops. A not unreasonable request, I think. Your reply dated 28th February stated, and I quote, “the operating hours specified in the planning permission for the new terminal will not come into force until the facility is operational”. That goes without saying. But I asked for details of the restrictions on operating hours which you state have been built in to the outline planning permission for the new terminal. At no point did I seek information relating to the present position. If you recall, my words were about the future, and I quote from my letter “only then will we be able to monitor whether the restriction is being observed”. May I politely request once more that you provide the details I requested. Or have you got something to hide?
The other safeguard you mention is “ongoing noise assessment”. In my letter of the 19th December I asked how, how often, where, and by whom the noise assessment checks will be carried out and would the results of the checks be published and, if so, where? Your response (again your letter of the 28th February) is limited to the following “noise reports, etc will be submitted to this Council under the requirements of the legal agreement accompanying the planning permission although I think there will be a need for specialist advice to be available to review the contents of any such reports”. With respect, that is a nothing reply. It does not answer any of my questions but simply raises more and does nothing to inspire any confidence at all that the Council has any real (as opposed to theoretical) concern for the environmental well-being of its residents. In my place would you be happy with such a reply? Perhaps now you would be good enough to answer the questions I asked…if you can!
Having dealt with the “safeguards” aspect built into the planning permission albeit the full details remain mysteriously hard to obtain, I would like to comment further on several other issues for which you disclaim any Council responsibility. The first comes back to “noise” (4 of your letter of the 28th February). You say that noise from airports and noise from flying aircraft are beyond the remit of the Local Authority. My initial reaction to this statement is “what the hell is the point of your building a safeguard about ongoing noise assessment into the planning permission?” If any resident’s complaint about noise will, again to use your words, “simply be passed to the airport operating company”, it would seem to make a total nonsense of the noise assessment safeguard which, whilst presentationally attractive, is in reality not worth a row of beans. You go on to state that the Airport Consultative Committee is not a decision making body. So what? It surely does not prevent a Councillor taking up a resident’s concern/complaint with the airport operator at a meeting of the Committee. A resident would certainly have more confidence that his/her complaint had been properly looked into if submitted through an independent party (in this case one of the Councillors on the Committee). Again you seem reluctant to supply details of the Councillors on the Consultative Committee. Why? The conclusion can only be that the Committee is a fairly weak-kneed group merely set up for purely presentational purposes for the benefit of the airport operator and the Council. Or, are residents represented? If not, why not?
I note what you say about low-flying aircraft. I was, in fact, already aware that the rules on flying over built-up areas are relaxed for aircraft taking off or landing or practising approaches at licensed aerodromes. However, there must surely come a point where the proximity of an aircraft to a dwelling be it private, school, hospital, etc becomes environmentally unacceptable. As the crow flies we live about 1/1½ miles from the airport and very close to the flight path. Very occasionally at present we get jet engined aircraft flying very close indeed to our rooftops. This is bearable because it is only very occasional, but 40 flights per day will inevitably increase the incidence to an unacceptable level. Did you not take the residential topography of the area surrounding the airport into consideration at the time of granting planning permission? I will take this aspect up with the CAA separately and let you have a copy of their response. But I suspect it will be to the effect that I should take up environmental concerns such as this with my local authority!
This brings me to the matter of consultation. Your letter of the 28th February states that a wide consultation exercise was carried out in respect of the proposals for the terminal and railway station from which of course the huge projected increases in passenger traffic naturally flow. Who did this wide consultation exercise include? Certainly not me, nor I suspect any other residents living close to or under the flight path. Perhaps you would be good enough to indicate precisely who were directly consulted. Suffice it to say, that if there is any justice, something momentous which will directly impact on the day-to-day lives of residents should not be allowed to go ahead without at least there being a direct invitation to them individually to contribute to the debate.
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government has influenced the decision you have taken which has basically sold residents in the proximity of the airport down the river. It is one thing to encourage people from outside the area to use the airport, it is entirely another to abandon the quality of life of your Council Tax paying residents. I will indeed be taking the matter up through my MP with Central Government but I should first appreciate your comments on the points I have made in this letter. I hope you will find it within your powers to respond rather more quickly than previously.
I will also be responding to the Airport Operators invitation to comment on their plan. I have no doubt that my comments will have no effect on what they propose. However, at least they have offered me and others like me an opportunity to comment which is considerably more than you and your counterparts in Southend have offered.
My letter to the CAA on the “low flying aircraft” aspect will include a request for details of any other aerodromes in the UK where there is a comparable residential population situated so close to and in direct line with the runway and of the traffic flows associated with them.
I would like to conclude by saying that I have no criticism of the solicitor who carried out enquiries on our behalf prior to the purchase of our current property in 1995. Even with a large crystal ball he could not have envisaged the situation which now confronts us. It is one thing for the Council to support the airport and its development – everyone would expect and accept that – but entirely another to do so to the complete exclusion of the reasonable expectations of a sizeable number of its residents to live a comparatively peaceful existence.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
J M Bramble
Cc David Amess MP
Mr Pregnall – Southend Council
