From: Ted Clarke, West Leigh resident.
I would like to respond to the comments expressed by Nigel Holdcroft in his article. I find them most disappointing, particularly in the context of Southend Airport.
His initial remarks confirm that the airport leasing arrangements require a legal variation to allow building of the already approved runway extension. In other words, no variation – no extension. He then implies that negotiation on operational terms is possible.
A significant bargaining tool and surprising news to many. Then confusingly, he later berates certain Councillors for ‘misleading the public in suggesting that the council can somehow stop any airport expansion or unilaterally impose restrictions on night flights, flight numbers or a range of other issues which we cannot’. It is true that the airport (as the other party to the lease) will need to agree to revisions – but I think this development must put SBC in the driving seat and I can now understand the optimism of those Councillors he seeks to criticise.
The surprise? SBC had previously argued that the only way forward here was to permit the extension and gain a replacement Section 106 agreement (governing airport operations) – which SBC has now formally adopted.
Nigel played his part in negotiating this new 106 but close scrutiny of it reveals many exemptions to the monthly night flying cap (120). Additionally the much vaunted ‘preferred routing’ is subject to the whims of wind and weather – with ‘safety factors’ always available to explain operational decisions. Most importantly, exemption from the 120 cap for Quota Count zero aircraft will allow unlimited night flying of small jet aircraft with many variants adaptable for freight pallets. Read it carefully and judge its real worth for yourself.
Certainly Councillor Faye Evans must have been bemused by it prior to her recent selection in Belfairs Ward. Her election address claimed that there would be ‘no night flights over Leigh.’ Patently untrue as things stand but no retraction followed (despite being requested to make one). Possibly other Councillors have not understood the ramifications of their support for these measures.
On this basis, there seems little validity in the argument that the new 106 represents an improvement to the previous situation of virtually no controls. How did that previous situation ever arise ? Look no further than SBC. They created the main lease 16 years ago which included permission for 915 night flights monthly instead of prohibiting them altogether.
His article castigates one local resident in spending ‘many tens of thousands’ of public money in seeking to challenge the legality of the extension permission (and for delaying the necessary Council meeting to debate the leasing changes). This is beyond the pale. As a qualified Solicitor surely he should support the principle of Legal Aid as providing the only recourse to the Courts for anyone otherwise unable to afford the action. Additionally, the applicant must prove a worthwhile case before permission is given to commence the Review proper.
Why would this person (apparently fully entitled to such Aid) be driven to such a step? Nigel must be fully aware that -
Current planning legislation delivered three meaningless ‘consultation’ rounds (two for the semi-secret Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) and one for the planning application). None have made any difference to preferred policy decision making – despite the vast majority of respondent objections each time.
The JAAP should have inherently led to an independent ‘Examination in Public’ of all aspects of the Plan and the robustness of the decisions made – including the key component of the extension. But wholesale departures from the Council’s own timetable for final submission to Government (July 2009 latest) saw the airport apply for the extension before the third JAAP consultation round had even been announced. This subtracted the extension from the promised examination and will emasculate it. Many must be asking the question – was that delay deliberate owing to the unexpected scale of local opposition?
There was optimism for a separate Public Enquiry following the volume of complaints made to Government and representations from David Amess about the circumstances of the decision – but this was refused.
The only avenue remaining is the High Court. Good luck to this person I say for showing the guts and determination to stand against the Council/ airport juggernaut.
Since Nigel has raised the question of wasting public money, let’s look at one example of the financial acumen of SBC- its dealings with the airport.
Our council literally gave a 150 year airport lease to the private sector (Regional Airports Ltd.- RAL) in 1994 after writing off almost £12 million – their latest in a series of operational losses. RAL’s wholly owned subsidiary, London Southend Airport Co. Ltd. (LSAC) became the lessee.
The lease was simultaneously accompanied by a separate ‘Development Land Agreement’. This was binding on the Council to pay for the airport infrastructure improvements with money from the sale of a community land asset (it became the retail park at Warner’s Bridge).
The resulting ‘Airport Development Fund’ raised well in excess of £5 million in capital plus interest and is largely spent.
The lease rental formula returned less than £1 million in total to the Council in the fourteen years of RAL involvement.
Because no arrangements were made to the contrary, the lease can be simply passed as an LSAC asset to any new majority shareholder – currently Stobart. In this way SBC are denied any profit share to recoup their considerable investment or any say in the choice or suitability of any new buyer.
SBC has made budgetary provision in 2010/11 of £2million for road and infrastructure improvements around the airport – we are told that it is designed to benefit the community and not the airport.
So, Regional Airports Ltd obtained the lease for nothing, got the Council to pay (and they remain liable to pay) for the infrastructure repairs and were able to sell their interest on for all of a reported £21 million to a major freight operator with no possibility of Council censure. The tail seems to have wagged the dog.
Nigel was a director of SBC’s own airport holding company (Southend Borough Council Airport Ltd.) at the time of privatisation in 1994 but I have absolutely no idea whether he had any part to play in the construction of the lease or the vetting of it prior to issue.
Residents must now get to grips with the fact of expansion with Stobart at the helm whether the extension is built or not. But SBC has at least a moral responsibility to limit the damage done when opening the Pandora’s Box of privatisation. When that meeting of the full Council is held and, if the Review fails, operational revisions should include a total ban on night flights as a first priority.. Our airport will protest but London City and Southampton airports exist commercially without them. So should we.
