A report from Southend Airport’s exhibition on its expansion followed by an interview with Denis Walker, Spokesman for SAEN.
Posts Tagged ‘Southend Borough Council’
Airport applies to extend terminal
Friday, January 13th, 2012Council misleads public on airport jobs
Thursday, October 27th, 2011For immediate release
Claims made in the local press today that 6,200 new jobs will be created at Southend Airport cruelly deceive the job-seekers of the area. This is an old figure based upon the old Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP), which the Council abandoned more than 2 years ago when Stobart bought the airport and submitted a planning application to extend the runway.
Ignoring the democratic process that had been set out for the JAAP, the councils accepted the planning application submission and proceeded to decide in favour of the runway extension despite the fact that 80% of respondents[2] had opposed the “High Growth” proposal that included the runway extension.
SAEN[1] spokesman Denis Walker explained “The old figure of 6700 jobs was itself a piece of creative accounting by Southend and Rochford Councils but they ditched the JAAP, which had already met with massive public opposition, when Stobart bought the airport.
“All that has happened here is that the supposed total of 500 jobs, which the airport is claiming to be creating, has been subtracted from the three-year-old figure. That figure was based on the assumption that the Saxon Business Park would be fully occupied, but so far there’s not even a developer lined up to build the busiess park. Even if it does get built, those jobs would not be new as the plans include a proposal to move businesses out of the Eldon Way Industiral Estate in Hockley.
“The Council were promising these jobs three years ago but so far there’s no business park, no new jobs and even the promises of airlines to ferry people to Ireland and Germany are disappearing into thin air.
“Southend and Rochford Councils have consistently talked up the jobs and supposed economic benefits that the airport expansion and nearby building projects would create, but there is no evidence to back the claims up. EasyJet are bringing 150 existing staff with them from Stansted and Stobart have used their own Civil Engineering firm (which is based in Cumbria) to build St Laurence Way and the runway extension. These are not jobs for local people.
“The town is being blighted by the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, the demolition of six homes and the threat of thousands of flights a month, but we’re getting nothing in return but more noise and more traffic. Regional airports take money out of the local economy as people go abroad to spend and while there will be a few jobs they never match the numbers the developers claim. The town has been double-crossed and councillors should be ashamed.”
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.
- http://www.saen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Resp-to-JAAP-POR-Final-Version.pdf (see p4)
For further information:
- Contact Denis Walker, Press Officer SAEN (Stop Airport Extension Now)
- Visit the SAEN website – http://saen.org.uk/
Bid fails to stop Southend Airport night flights
Thursday, March 17th, 2011By John Geoghegan
LAST-DITCH calls for a night-time closure at Southend Airport have been rejected.
Plans for a new lease arrangement at the airport have cleared the first hurdle after they were approved by 39 votes to four at a heated Southend Council meeting.
Under the terms the council, which owns the land, is proposing to cut the night flights limit from 915 a month to 120, while placing strict controls on noise.
However, Lib Dem councillors wanted to go a step further and enforce a complete airport closure between 11pm and 6.30am.
They wanted the closure so that residents in Leigh and Eastwood could be reassured they would not be disturbed at all at night.
Group leader Graham Longley (Lib Dem, Blenheim Park), who proposed the amendment, said he was also concerned at the length of the 200-year lease and made further proposals to cut it to 150 years and provide lease review periods.
But many councillors were swung by the economic argument put forward by aviation consultants and officers that a night closure would hit the trade of the airport’s maintenance firms, such as ATC Lasham.
Council leader Nigel Holdcroft (Con, West Leigh) said: “To operate a successful maintenance business, it’s essential to have access to planes around the clock.
“Some planes have to go in and out very quickly.” An airport closure is simply not workable.”
Mr Holdcroft went on to say the airport would never agree to a complete night closure and it was unrealistic for opposition councillors to propose one.
Labour leader Ian Gilbert (Lab, Victoria) said he wanted tighter night flight limits, but was worried about the effect on jobs so he could not support a night closure.
The amendment was defeated by 34 votes to 11 with all the Lib Dem members voting for. Mr Longley’s other two proposals were also rejected.
Ric Morgan (Lib Dem, Prittlewell) said the council had failed to properly inform or consult residents.
He said: “Why was there not a proper referendum on what Southend residents believe?
“An expanded passenger airport near densely populated area is mid-20th century thinking. I believe it’s been put upon the people of Southend without adequate information or consultation.”
Mr Holdcroft said: “I’m happy we are negotiating the best package we can.
“As a resident of Leigh, I would be far happier about the future expansion of the airport with this package of environmental controls than if it expanded without them.”
About 20 residents and members of campaign group Stop Airport Extension Now looked on from the public gallery. Further meetings take place next week before the proposals are finalised.
We need to ask questions about future of the town
Monday, February 28th, 2011John Geoghegan’s report on present and future developments in Southend was accompanied by a photograph of the refurbished Palace Hotel.
While it is undeniably welcome to see an iconic building restored and back in use, it does not represent the plans of Southend Council for the town.
Consider how out of place the Palace looks against the glass structure giving access to the pier, and what will be the view when the wave-roofed construction is planted on the pierhead?
We seem to have swapped historic seafront shelters for lighting columns which look like dockland cranes and the City Beach (where did that come from?) with no kerbs to separate traffic and pedestrians.
Consider Mr Geoghegan’s question in the light of the retail takeover by giants such as Tesco, for who we can only assume that the Victoria junction was ripped apart, and Sainsbury’s, bulldozing small businesses literally to make way for a superstore diagonally opposite Priory Park.
The whole Priory Crescent fiasco and the airport expansion have more to do with business and the assumption of local jobs than anything else.
Certainly, the manufacturers of traffic lights are enjoying a boom at Cuckoo Corner. At least they will give the newly trapped drivers something to look at as that junction becomes the new Blue Boar congestion blackspot.
Why did Tesco get planning approval without the promised affordable homes on the prime central Southend site?
Why are Southend planners offering so much support to Sainsbury’s to the extent of possible compulsory purchase, in exchange for a rapidly shrinking, but still oversize, stadium at Fossetts Farm?
And why are these type of schemes all decided by the council’s development control committee, which seems to go out of its way to make public debate and input impossible?
My only hope is that when it comes to this year’s local elections, the people of Southend don’t forget to ask candidates awkward questions and then vote accordingly.
Alan Hart
Randolph Close
Leigh
Terms of airport lease will be discussed
Tuesday, February 15th, 2011SOUTHEND councillors have always been assured by the council leader, Nigel Holdcroft that they would have the opportunity to discuss the terms of the lease with Stobart’s, the airport operator, before a final decision is made.
Coun Holdcroft says he hopes that this debate could take place in March.
The major bone of contention is night flights. The airport is one of the few airports around that has a 24/7 operating licence. Since Stobart took over the airport and had talks with the council they did agree to a number of restrictions on night flights.
“We have ongoing negotiations with the airport about these issues and by the time we hold the debate I hope we can have a definite proposal on environmental controls,” he said.
“Councillors would then have the opportunity to ‘take it or leave’.”
Coun Graham Longley, leader of the Lib Dem group, the main opposition party on the council, said that when the full debate takes place in the council he would be pushing for a period during the night when there were no night flights.
“Before then I hope the council and the airport can come to an agreement when there will be no disturbance to residents for a period in the night – when they can be guaranteed they can get some uninterupted sleep.
“I think a reasonable time period would be from 1am to 5am,” he said. “I know some people would prefer 12midnight to 6am, but I think the other would be a fair compromise.
“I think that now the airport has won the debate it should be magnanimous and offer this period of time when it would be closed for incoming and outgoing aircraft.
“I am sure my group would support this concept.”
Coun Martin Terry, the leader of the next biggest group, the Independents, welcomed the news about the judicial review.
“It’s splendid news,” he said. “It now gives the airport the opportunity to pull out all the stops and have the airport ready in time for the Olympic Games.”
The new station is expected to be operational next month, in time for the launch of the Irish service, work on the control tower is due to finish later this month, a start will soon be made on the new airport terminal, and work will soon start on the new road from Eastwoodbury Lane to link up with Nestuda Way.
In the meantime, though, the campaigning members of Stop Airport Extension Now (SAEN) have made it clear that the fight goes on.
They maintain that the runway extension will cause more pollution in the borough, disturb those nearby and along the flight path and would not bring the sort of economic benefits to the town that those in favour say it will.
Council bosses attacked over airport growth plan
Friday, January 14th, 2011By JOHN GEOGHEGAN
Political reporter
AN OPPOSITION councillor has attacked council bosses for “bending over backwards” to help Southend Airport.
Lib Dem Peter Wexham spoke out at a meeting as plans to give up 12 acres of St Laurence park for a new link road were approved.
Southend Airport wants to build the road, between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, to allow for the extension of its runway by 300m.
A meeting of all 51 Southend councillors was called specially to discuss the issue, following the economic and environmental scrutiny committee which met before-hand.
Council leader Nigel Holdcroft (Con, West Leigh) said: “The airport is anxious to start work as soon as possible. Therefore, we have scheduled this short meeting.” [...confirming that the Council was indeed bending over backwards to help the airport.]
Mr Wexham (Lib Dem, Leigh), who voted against the plans, said the meetings had been rushed through.
He said: “It seems we have spent a lot of money on officer time and getting everybody here to rush this through.
“We did it back in November and are doing it again now.
“It’s only a couple of weeks to wait for the next scrutiny meeting. Whatever the airport says, we do.
“The airport says ‘jump,’ we say ‘how high?’ It’s all for the airport, nothing for the residents.”
Brian Kelly (Con, Southchurch) said: “The real reason for doing this is to improve the employment prospects and prosperity of the town. Those are enough good reasons.” […having ignored increased noise, pollution, climate change gas emissions, oil prices and traffic and the end of commercially extractable oil within the next two decades.]
The council plans to build the link road regardless of whether the runway extension, facing two judicial review applications, goes ahead or not.
As well as giving up part of the park, it will involve moving a children’s playground, swapping a corner of the Royal Bank of Scotland car park for open land and adding a nearby meadow to the park.
The council’s report for the meeting also looked at the objections 19 residents raised against the plans.
Mr Wexham said officers had “rubbished” all the objections.
Mr Holdcroft replied: “It doesn’t rubbish anything. We have looked very carefully at each and every one in detail. […before even more carefully totally ignoring them]
“The officers’ view was that there was no valid reason not to go ahead with the scheme.”
Key decisions on Airport to be made in September
Sunday, July 4th, 2010The July edition of Southend Council’s Forward Plan shows that two decisions relating to Southend Council are to be made on 21st September.
The first is on the “London Southend Airport and Environs Area Action Plan” – the JAAP. Notes on this decision say that the plan is:
Unlikely to go forward on agreed timescale – awaiting further information from CEO and Leader. Use comment button below. Deadline 1 month prior to likely date of decision.
The officer responsible is Andrew Meddle.
Also shown for 21st September is a decision on “Leasing Arrangements re: Southend Airport”. The item indicates that the key decision maker is the Cabinet but notes:
(Although Leader has agreed that Council will perform a scrutiny function in advance of Cabinet)
It also recognises that all wards will be affected, “although those nearest the airport or under flight paths will be most directly affected.” This is the first time we have seen Southend Council indicate that there will be an adverse impact of their decisions relating to the airport, even if it is rather an oblique reference. The officer responsible for this issue is a Sally Holland.
According to the Council’s Democratic Services Assistant, Rebekah Sayer, the Forward Plan should now be available on the Council’s website. However, it would appear that exhibiting their usual lack of competence, the document has got lost as a result of their website redesign. A number of pages make reference to the Forward Plan, but at the time of publishing none contained a working link to the plan itself:
Is runway approval a foregone conclusion at Southend Airport?
Thursday, January 14th, 2010As soon as Stobart submitted their planning application to extend the runway at London Southend Airport, some people said that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. They could be accused of being cynical, but the evidence is now mounting that they were right.
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/
Planning Dept Report now available
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010The report by Council Officers has now been published and is available on the Southend Council website.
SAEN’s analysis to follow…
Errors in Planning Dept’s handling of the planning application
Monday, January 11th, 2010The following is an edited version of a letter sent to Dean Hermitage of Southend Borough Council Planning Department and Andrew Edwards, a member of the GO East Planning Casework Team. Names of respondents have been removed for publication on the web.
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.
