Plan goes in for £30m Southend Airport expansion (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Plan goes in for £30m Southend Airport expansion
8:00am Tuesday 13th October 2009 in News
Planning application goes in for £30m Southend Airport expansion plan
THE £30million development of Southend Airport is finally set for take-off.
Stobart Air submit a planning application today which could see the extension of the runway and other changes put in place by May 2011.
The move follows negotiations with Southend and Rochford councils over night flights and noise controls, if the expansion gets the go-ahead.
The controversial plan would involve the demolition of six houses and closing Eastwoodbury Lane to traffic.
Work is already under way on a new railway station on the Liverpool Street to Southend Victoria line, and a new control tower is planned for the near future. More than 6,500 jobs could be created as part of the development.
The planning application will be subjected to close examination by members of Southend Council’s development control committee.
The committee will review the application when it meets in January next year, and has the power to accept or reject the submitted plans.
Composed of members of all parties, the committee is independent within the council and has the authority to impose further controls on the development as part of any approval.
Council leader Nigel Holdcroft said: “I expect councillors to scrutinise the airport planning application thoroughly and fairly, taking into account both the needs of the airport operator and the local community.”
- EXCLUSIVE DETAIL IN TODAY'S ECHO
Comments(44)
Soozie
says...
8:52am Tue 13 Oct 09
Sir Henry Rawlinson
says...
8:58am Tue 13 Oct 09
Peter Pantsless
says...
9:33am Tue 13 Oct 09
.
What Nigel really means is that SBC will go through this with a fine tooth comb to exploit any oportunity for consultancy and the involvement of Renaissance if possible.
.
Many millions of pounds could be squandered if Nigel and his posse play their cards right!
Good luck Stobart, you'll need it!
Soozie
says...
10:00am Tue 13 Oct 09
Peter Pantsless wrote:LOL..Sad but true
"Council leader Nigel Holdcroft said: “I expect councillors to scrutinise the airport planning application thoroughly and fairly"... . What Nigel really means is that SBC will go through this with a fine tooth comb to exploit any oportunity for consultancy and the involvement of Renaissance if possible. . Many millions of pounds could be squandered if Nigel and his posse play their cards right! Good luck Stobart, you'll need it!
152
says...
11:33am Tue 13 Oct 09
Max Impact
says...
12:51pm Tue 13 Oct 09
152 wrote:Read the full planing app its going to redirect Eastwoodberry Lane not close it.
Judging by how busy it gets Eastwoodbury Lane would need to be moved further South, otherwise its closure will contribute to traffic chaos elsewhere in the area, such as the A127 and the Ann Boleyn junction.
SARFENDMAN
says...
2:50pm Tue 13 Oct 09
southendreb
says...
3:34pm Tue 13 Oct 09
i wont comment but remember its only an aplication.
southendreb
says...
3:34pm Tue 13 Oct 09
i wont comment but remember its only an aplication.
BASILBRUSH
says...
3:37pm Tue 13 Oct 09
southendreb wrote:I know. But its a step in the right direction as I far as I am concerned.
hi basil i wont comment but remember its only an aplication.
gordonbennet
says...
5:08pm Tue 13 Oct 09
diane m
says...
5:46pm Tue 13 Oct 09
More planes, more traffic, more polution, more noise.
The extra flights at the moment are a nightmare, making my house shake - I moved from Southend (not far from the airport) to Canvey and it's even worse here than it ever was when I lived there.
southendman9
says...
6:06pm Tue 13 Oct 09
leighman
says...
6:28pm Tue 13 Oct 09
5:46pm Tue 13 Oct 09
.
The extra flights at the moment are a nightmare, making my house shake - I moved from Southend (not far from the airport) to Canvey and it's even worse here than it ever was when I lived there...............
....................
.........
Must be a dodgy timber / roughcast build you're in!
BASILBRUSH
says...
7:20pm Tue 13 Oct 09
gordonbennet wrote:diane m,
Excellent news! Long overdue. Let's hope the council do the right thing and approve the plans, both for the sake of the town and the entire area.
An extension would actually benefit you. With the runway extension a new Instrument Landing System (ILS) would be installed. This would give a steeper approach angle and more accurate approaches on runway 06 which you are under. The aircraft would be higher.
Plus with the proposed restrictions and a longer runway. Where possible aircraft will be able to land on 24 (from the NE) and depart to the North East more often than now. Avoiding Canvey, Leigh etc.
ericslayer
says...
7:41pm Tue 13 Oct 09
voiceofleigh
says...
7:50pm Tue 13 Oct 09
BASILBRUSH
says...
8:11pm Tue 13 Oct 09
And wants to see progress in this town.
I perhaps spend too much time reading this and commenting on many different projects in the town.
But if Stobart want to pay for my time i would only be too glad to accept! ;)
Nebs
says...
12:39am Wed 14 Oct 09
Thames Gateway
says...
7:20am Wed 14 Oct 09
Southend airport is of course a reality, just waiting to be utilised properly as an airport.
Sir Henry Rawlinson
says...
8:49am Wed 14 Oct 09
There are two polar views here and a negotiated compromise has to be the best option. In one corner, Stobarts would like an unrestricted airport with flights allowed at any time but they have accepted the restrictions. Similarly, the residents want no expansion but Kiti Theobald has made the right noises about steps in the right direction. Hopefully the Council will approve the plans, however, what if they don't?
As far as I can see there are two likely scenarios:
1. Stobarts run the airport within the existing guidelines thus increasing the number of freight and, potentially, passenger flights both day and night.
2. They decide to pull out and sell to a property developer, resulting in a massive housing estate on the site, bringing with it its own problems (and potentially a Dale Farm 2 during the protacted planning process).
A final word to those still against the scheme - be careful what you wish for....
Levelfield
says...
9:29am Wed 14 Oct 09
Yet here we have a major British company who is prepared to invest £30 million to create one of the most modern airport infrastructures in the country, who has in return agreed very strict limits to night and freight flights (much stricter I'm sure than most people would have believed likely and certainly putting the lie to the colourful stories about Stobart wanting to turn the airport into an airfreight hub), and is planning a 'preferred runway' operation so as to reduce further the noise effects over Eastwood and Leigh. To say nothing of the employment opportunities which will inevitably result and the fact that local residents will not have to travel to Gatwick or Stansted and all the hassle that involves. And still there are people who would kick Stobarts in the teeth and prefer to keep things as they are. That's OK if you're retired and just want peace and quiet, (apart from the possibility of 30 night flights every day of course if the plans are turned down) but what about the younger generation for whom jobs are becoming ever more difficult to find? If this opportunity is thrown away the town will continue its decline and the fact will not be overlooked by the wider business community when planning their expansion or relocation options.
It really is that important.
tophatdt
says...
9:45am Wed 14 Oct 09
tophatdt
says...
9:49am Wed 14 Oct 09
SafetySam
says...
12:00pm Wed 14 Oct 09
My bag is waiting to be packed ready for a stroll just down the road to the airport. (Shall I be really lazy and get a train from Rochford station to the new airport station!).
Just one point - If the operators of the Airlines/Airport were to exceed the number of flights or the regulated noise limits and get fined, who gets the cash? I bet it is the government!
Sealherder
says...
2:38pm Wed 14 Oct 09
Southend airport and all the other wannabe "London" regional airports are currently exploiting the local planning system in a race to beat a more strategic air transport Bill that will control them and be part of our carbon emissions and global warming policy.
The current thinking of our civic planners and our local politicians is locked in the past on this project.
We live in a densely populated area, surrounded by noisy polluting and increasing traffic and crowded skies at all altitudes.
Contrails increase global warming, particulates increase pollution and lower air quality, exhaust gases add to the carbon load and noise and visual intrusion from aircraft destroys any tranquility.
For those of you who argue that this will rejuvenate the seafront and regenerate the rest of the town, how many times have you visited the town nearest to the airport you fly from? Do you visit the towns of Gatwick and Stanstead before or after you fly in or out of them? No people don’t do that, they transit through to their final destination as quickly as possible.
The only thing this project will rejuvenate is the bank balance of Stobart Group and they don't care about the consequences because they don't live here. We are being hoodwinked over profit and in ten years time when the world is a very different place you won’t be glad about losing what little space and tranquility we currently have around us.
For the planners and politicians its an easy choice, they will always back someone who is prepared to spend 30 million of their own money and take away the hard work of finding other more innovative ways of regeneration!
I thinks some of the people who post here clearly have vested interests in the airport expansion, the rest of you need to simply wake up and do some proper home work on the subject before being rude about NIBYs because it will be your back yards very soon.
Sir Henry Rawlinson
says...
3:16pm Wed 14 Oct 09
Would you rather have an airport that is strictly controlled, particularly at night or one where the operator has virtually free rein to allow planes to land and take off whenever they want?
Sealherder
says...
4:03pm Wed 14 Oct 09
Sir Henry Rawlinson
says...
4:20pm Wed 14 Oct 09
Sealherder
says...
4:42pm Wed 14 Oct 09
BASILBRUSH
says...
5:16pm Wed 14 Oct 09
The rush you talk has been over 10 years considering the lack of progress and investment in the past and the want to capitalise on the upcoming Olympic games. Which the town as a whole could benefit from.
By showing they have a capable airport during the games, will probably attract future business post Olympics.... No hidden agenda. Just good business sense.
The airport and Stobart group won't save the town on its own, but will promote the town and encourage other investors to look seriously at Southend and surrounding areas along with an expanding University. This leads to employment and opportunities.
This is not an overnight project. You talk of declining aviation in the past 18 months. Thats not long term.
voiceofleigh
says...
5:27pm Wed 14 Oct 09
ericslayer
says...
5:38pm Wed 14 Oct 09
318
says...
8:41pm Wed 14 Oct 09
I use London city once a week, and cant wait for southend to get the green light, this is a fantastic chance to southend back on the map! not just for its airport but all the good thats going to come from it.
Wake up some of you and live for today, Newham council get so much back from the airport its unreal!
Thames Gateway
says...
9:11pm Wed 14 Oct 09
318 wrote:318 you are right. However bear in mind it is only a vociferous minority of Leigh people, with mixed up arguments, who are against the airport. You can feel the weight of the chips on their shoulders from here, must be a terrible burden.
I can't understand why people are so negative about something so positive for the local area of southend?? I use London city once a week, and cant wait for southend to get the green light, this is a fantastic chance to southend back on the map! not just for its airport but all the good thats going to come from it. Wake up some of you and live for today, Newham council get so much back from the airport its unreal!
Sealherder
says...
9:16pm Wed 14 Oct 09
BASILBRUSH
says...
2:43am Thu 15 Oct 09
'737’s a jet the size of 4 houses going over at rooftop level every 20 minutes?'
Again nonsense, scaremongering and trading in fear.
'
Sealherder
says...
8:36am Thu 15 Oct 09
j-w
says...
9:00am Thu 15 Oct 09
that is about all i can say.
Norfolk
says...
11:23am Thu 15 Oct 09
I respect your views on the environment and climate change, but enabling passengers to use Southend instead of Stansted or Gatwick does not result in any net increases in emissions and may actually reduce them by there being an estimated reduction of 4 million passenger car miles per annum currently driven to London area airports from the Southend area.
Sealherder
says...
1:30pm Thu 15 Oct 09
Norfolk
says...
4:48pm Thu 15 Oct 09
I don't really know how difficult it would be to change the Section 106 agreement as I'm no lawyer, but as I understand it the Agreement forms a part of any planning consent to which it is attached. If it were to be changed (and only with the consent of both SBC and RDC could that be done) I believe it could invalidate the whole planning consent. I will try to discover a bit more on that point, but if it could be easily changed that would, indeed, be rather alarming as it forms such an important part of the 'give and take' aspects of this application.
On the matter of a large increase in freight flights in the event of the 'status quo' remaining, it's my belief that Stobart would simply take a fresh look at what it then had on its hands and the answer might come up as the freight option, as far as that actually exists. Don't forget that they bought the airport on the understanding that a planning application to extend the runway would be made so, to date, all their assumptions will have been based on it being a passenger airport and that is clearly their wish as things stand. Most freight contracts are renewed annually I believe so there would always be a lag between them wishing to attract new freight operators and it actually happening ,so I'm sure they wouldn't have gone to the trouble with their sights still fixed firmly on the passenger option. Having researched the current European airfreight industry there seem to be at least 100 aircraft of about 5 tonnes capacity going to and fro each night, with none of these currently using Southend. I'm not saying it would be a racing certainty by any means, but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that Stobarts could at least try to attract some of that work if the worst came to the worst in they eyes. Please accept that I'm not trying to scaremonger in any way, but just pointing out what could happen with absolutely no way of stopping it under the current restrictions.
Perhaps I wasn't clear on the point about the 4 million car miles, but I read that this is the mileage currently driven by people living in the Southend area who at present fly from other London area airports than Southend. I agree that not many local people will use the station - that will be mainly used by incoming passengers from Europe to gain easy access to London. It's the great reduction in the 900,000 passengers driving elsewhre which you mention that will bring about that saving as I understand it.
I will read the document that you mention on UK Air Passenger Demand.
Your point about the Sustainable Development Commission report and a possible future intergrated Air Transport Bill is certainly an arguable one and that aspect should be considered by the planning authority. My feeling though is that the timescale might be rather long for such a Bill to become law, if ever, and that Stobarts could validly argue that it's too vague to be given much weight to a decision on the current planning application. I'll certainly try to find the Sustainable Development Commission report though as it sounds interesting.
notnimby
says...
4:31pm Fri 16 Oct 09
Sealherder wrote:well said...i think a judicial review would also be appropriate....
Norfolk, thank you for posting a debatable point rather than just a sound bite and you are clearly in the “let’s have slow expansion at the airport” camp. My problem with this approach is it’s really the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” option being the worst option in my view because the limitations on the airport would be by “permissions” and they can be revoked, modified and renegotiated between the airport lease holder Stobart and the Councils who have clearly demonstrated full support for the complete expansion plans in the past. So the control for future expansion once planning is granted will be worth about as much as one of General Custer’s famous treaties with the Red Indians and we all know what happened to them. Long term these permissions would be pretty worthless I would expect, and slow expansion would quickly turn into fast expansion as pressure is put on the councils to allow the Stobart plan to work. The councils, particularly the planners are really only paying lip service to the protesters to get the planning application through at this stage. The local politicians will of course dance this way and that depending upon how they think the local voters will go next time around. But the real weakness in the argument that if we don’t accept this compromise we will have a worse situation is this; if you are right about Stobart flying in freight 24 hours a day to get a return on their investments if planning is not given then why aren’t they doing that right now? The reason is that the airstrip is not suitable to fly in heavy loads, either full of freight or full of people so they would need the planning consent to do that in any event. The argument of worse to come if we don’t allow the planning consent is a “red herring” probably started by the pro expansion lobby, but there is no logic to it. Defeating the planning consents is really the only thing that will stop this expansion happening in ultimately its worst form. To reiterate there is no “need” for this expansion, if all the regional airports around London were developed they would only provide 2% of the total air passenger movements capacity. So there will be a more strategic approach to the problem by the next Government that should consider the whole air transport expansion issue not just the extra runways and developments at Heathrow and Stanstead. I believe it would be prudent for the local planners and councillors to take heed of this and at least defer the planning consent until there is an integrated Air Transport Bill. Norfolk I take your point about reading the full planning application, but having read the latest publication from the Sustainable Development Commission it’s very clear that their industry workshops and forums establish that “any” of the current data provided by the protagonists “for expansion and against expansion” is contestable. They suggest a special Commission to be set up to consider all these issues independently. And on that note I must challenge your sums on the issue of 4 million passenger car miles being saved by the current proposal which is another pro expansion argument. Just because you will have a station at the airport doesn’t mean the passengers will use it on a demographic basis, the 900,000 or so local passengers who currently use their cars to drive to an airport will still do so. Overseas passengers will probably use it but not exclusively but if you wanted to understand more about the movement of passengers I suggest you read the UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 forecasts published January 2009. In the end the issues surrounding this expansion plan are a mix of local, regional, national and international issues. I would be against it even if I didn’t live near to it, it’s a pity in my view that those that are for the idea won’t consider the bigger picture, because in the future passenger expectations over the convenience and costs of air transport will have to change.
BASILBRUSH says...
8:31am Tue 13 Oct 09
Its worth pointing out that Eastwoodbury Lane will be diverted allowing freeflow of traffic, not closed as the article suggests.
I just hope the councillors continue to see sense and allow this to happen for 'all' of us.