Campaigners want Southend Council in court over airport runway extension (From Echo)

I've lived in the area 42 years. The airport has been here a lot longer than that.

So hands up anyone who moved to the area not knowing there was an airport?

And hands up anybody who didn't know that there have been a multitude of plans to develop the airport over the last 42 years (that I know of)?

Finally hands up those of you who bought your houses believing that the airport would never change?

I don't believe there will be too many people with their hands up. So do any of us really have a case when we start objecting to the changes that are being made?

LocalBoy wrote:
I've lived in the area 42 years. The airport has been here a lot longer than that.

So hands up anyone who moved to the area not knowing there was an airport?

And hands up anybody who didn't know that there have been a multitude of plans to develop the airport over the last 42 years (that I know of)?

Finally hands up those of you who bought your houses believing that the airport would never change?

I don't believe there will be too many people with their hands up. So do any of us really have a case when we start objecting to the changes that are being made?

Amen to that!
.
The improvements to Southend Airport are *already* bringing new jobs and new prospects to the area. Aviation companies are creating apprenticeships for our youth that have /no/ prospects of a local job otherwise, the new railway station has brought in civil service jobs and look at all the businesses starting to grow around the area; new hotels and the like all giving us vital employment opportunities. Expanding the airport is nothing but a good thing.

SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words.

Did I move here knowing there was an airport etc. of course, but then I suspect that each of the pro airport writers also moved into their houses with a road outside. hands up if you would have not objected to them up grading the road to a dual carriage way with night time lorry noises. when I moved here, they could not extend the runway at the Rochford end, because of the rail lines. They tried the Leigh end & requested the church be moved. That was thrown out & even then they said without it the airport was not viable & would close. That was in 2008 & it is still here with the original runway. So why the need to change again? So far the airport has shed jobs not increased them. So lets us hope that the courts agree that SBC granting the planning permission was not legal & quash it.

Ho hum.
Will SAEN never get it into their heads that they had no case and have no case. They are now making themselves look pathetic and very bad losers. I feel sorry for them.

Campbell's dad wrote:
SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words.

Did I move here knowing there was an airport etc. of course, but then I suspect that each of the pro airport writers also moved into their houses with a road outside. hands up if you would have not objected to them up grading the road to a dual carriage way with night time lorry noises. when I moved here, they could not extend the runway at the Rochford end, because of the rail lines. They tried the Leigh end & requested the church be moved. That was thrown out & even then they said without it the airport was not viable & would close. That was in 2008 & it is still here with the original runway. So why the need to change again? So far the airport has shed jobs not increased them. So lets us hope that the courts agree that SBC granting the planning permission was not legal & quash it.

YAWN!

Let common sense prevail,get on with the extension and bring the airport back to life.

Hear, hear !

Sorry folks but i weigh in with keep the airport - but just as it is. Anyone else hear the plane Thurs 24 June around 1.30. there is no doubt that plane was too big to carry passengers and that no school could have carried on with lessons whilst it flew over. There is no way that noise was just a few decibels increase for Blenheim School that the sirport said it would be.I had a visitor at the time who is pro expansion but they were absolutely shocked. if jobs are being created already then great why expand, come on build the business park (which is not needed but lets have it for the jobs.0Build the offices (which are not needed we have enough) Get real - the traffic already is horrendous and we are going to be grid-locked. Enjoy your once a year trip at the expense of those poor souls who will have that noise every day. All for the profit of Stobart. i have seen the lines on containers - Inverness, the lines of lorries at Newark. Once established and with the port at Thurrock most of us will be moving out of this town.

Campbell's dad wrote:
SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words.

Did I move here knowing there was an airport etc. of course, but then I suspect that each of the pro airport writers also moved into their houses with a road outside. hands up if you would have not objected to them up grading the road to a dual carriage way with night time lorry noises. when I moved here, they could not extend the runway at the Rochford end, because of the rail lines. They tried the Leigh end & requested the church be moved. That was thrown out & even then they said without it the airport was not viable & would close. That was in 2008 & it is still here with the original runway. So why the need to change again? So far the airport has shed jobs not increased them. So lets us hope that the courts agree that SBC granting the planning permission was not legal & quash it.

I don't think that your example of a road outside a house is a particularly good analogy to draw.

Anyone who purchases a property in the area of a commercial airport that has consistently applied for extensions to the runway over many years must know that the desire for the runway extension would not go away.

Relying on the planning authorities to continue turning down these applications was a gamble that unfortunately you have lost.

If SAEN are using the consultation results then there is a major flaw in their logic...


A Consultation is in no way shape or form a legally binding document.

If the consultation had been a referendum then yes they could say something but it was not a referendum.



Hope they have not been granted legal aid in this fight, they clearly do not want job creation in Southend no extended runway no new business park its all part of the same application.


They need to take a look around and see just how much Southend is crying out for jobs to be created.
Let’s hope this petty case is thrown out like it should be and get Southend on track for a new era of prosperity with first class transport links by Road, Rail, Sea and Air.
Most of the Anti lot probably fly off on holiday a few times a year so its fine for them to fly over somebody’s house but the second somebody wants to fly over their house it’s whinge wine moan bleat can’t do this can’t do that.


Can’t these people read the REAL fact that if the runway is extended there will be major restriction on the types permitting only the cleaner more quite types in, night flight will be cut and thousands of jobs created, without the extension than none of these new restrictions or jobs will be implemented.


If SAEN loose and I really do hope that they do let’s hope they get lumbered with all the court costs but then again they will moan about that.

And to anyone interested David Amess is doing a petition to the European court to try to stop it. So if you want to sign one contact him - must be in by 31 August.

If SAEN have a right to contest this decision then so be it. If they have a right to legal aid to help them then so be it.

After all we do live in a democracy that is supposed to be noted for it's freedom of speech. I'm happy for them to follow the legal process even if it is at a cost to me as a taxpayer.

However I hope they do not win.

Nobody can say this came as a surprise.
Its only an application for a Judicial review and the full planning permision still stands, hence you can see work continues.
SAEN's arguements are, as usual flawed and based on scare mongering. They keep talking of a majority. Yet as has been pointed out many times, less than 1% of the total population of Southend and Rochford area made a comment against the runway extension in JAAP consultation (not referendum).
Another waste of tax payers money from a group led by serial protestors against jobs and progress in Southend.
SAEN and SKIPP for that matter, you do not represent the popular view people in this area! Just look at the poor turn outs at your gatherings. ;)

emcee wrote:

Campbell's dad wrote:
SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words.

Did I move here knowing there was an airport etc. of course, but then I suspect that each of the pro airport writers also moved into their houses with a road outside. hands up if you would have not objected to them up grading the road to a dual carriage way with night time lorry noises. when I moved here, they could not extend the runway at the Rochford end, because of the rail lines. They tried the Leigh end & requested the church be moved. That was thrown out & even then they said without it the airport was not viable & would close. That was in 2008 & it is still here with the original runway. So why the need to change again? So far the airport has shed jobs not increased them. So lets us hope that the courts agree that SBC granting the planning permission was not legal & quash it.

YAWN!

How rude and disrespectful, emcee. You should know better.

Sore loosers then, definately loosers though, the lot of them!

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Nobody can say this came as a surprise.
Its only an application for a Judicial review and the full planning permision still stands, hence you can see work continues.
SAEN's arguements are, as usual flawed and based on scare mongering. They keep talking of a majority. Yet as has been pointed out many times, less than 1% of the total population of Southend and Rochford area made a comment against the runway extension in JAAP consultation (not referendum).
Another waste of tax payers money from a group led by serial protestors against jobs and progress in Southend.
SAEN and SKIPP for that matter, you do not represent the popular view people in this area! Just look at the poor turn outs at your gatherings. ;)

And what has the turnout been like at pro-expansion gatherings?

What pro gatherings? Why do suppose pro's would feel the need to gather?

So there have been no gatherings of people demonstrating in favour of expansion. Sounds to me then like there's no-one outside of a minority of councillors in favour of expansion.

Yes V good come back. Very scientific.
So an application that was approved following a review by the secretary of State to check due process was carried out. Is being contested.
If allowed that will mean the council will (at the tax payers expense) be defending the correct decision. Against a group using tax payers money through legal aid, who are challenging the process that was already scritinised.

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Yes V good come back. Very scientific.
So an application that was approved following a review by the secretary of State to check due process was carried out. Is being contested.
If allowed that will mean the council will (at the tax payers expense) be defending the correct decision. Against a group using tax payers money through legal aid, who are challenging the process that was already scritinised.

It is as 'scientific' as your own argument that turnout at protests reflects the level of opposition among the local population.

jolllyboy wrote:
And to anyone interested David Amess is doing a petition to the European court to try to stop it. So if you want to sign one contact him - must be in by 31 August.

Says it all really. Fools follow fools.

People have a right to protest. That is the benefit of living in a democracy. The law is there for everyone to use.
.
When is the work going to start on the business park? Nobody even talks about it anymore. Maybe the work at the airport, which will benefit Stobart, shoud be carried out at the same time as work on the industrial park, which will benefit (unless you drive) the community.

emcee wrote:

jolllyboy wrote:
And to anyone interested David Amess is doing a petition to the European court to try to stop it. So if you want to sign one contact him - must be in by 31 August.

Says it all really. Fools follow fools.

And it takes one to know one.

Interesting if somewhat futile tactic by SAEN. In the unlikely event they were to get the extension stopped, but the new buildings all went ahead, the airport would struggle to get airlines to use it.

The current length of the runway has always been a significant drawback. Fully loaded aircraft are restricted as to the destinations they can serve. If Stobart are to attract new operators and destinations, the extension is matter of necessity.

I for one hope SAEN do not get permission for a judicial review. We are not looking at another Heathrow or Gatwick in this instance. It's time they hung up their boots and graciously accepted defeat.

Campbell's dad wrote:
SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words. Did I move here knowing there was an airport etc. of course, but then I suspect that each of the pro airport writers also moved into their houses with a road outside. hands up if you would have not objected to them up grading the road to a dual carriage way with night time lorry noises. when I moved here, they could not extend the runway at the Rochford end, because of the rail lines. They tried the Leigh end & requested the church be moved. That was thrown out & even then they said without it the airport was not viable & would close. That was in 2008 & it is still here with the original runway. So why the need to change again? So far the airport has shed jobs not increased them. So lets us hope that the courts agree that SBC granting the planning permission was not legal & quash it.

Simples - get a life ....or move, preferably faraway! The airport was there many years ago - 1914 I believe - so stop whinging!

Mr Whitehead said “The council took the decision against the will of the vast majority of the people who responded to the consultation."

You mean the majority of the less than 1% of the population of Southend area that responded.

I'm like a broken record aren't I.

V. My argument is an observation based on photos published by the group/s themselves and from my own eyes.
The protest of around 5 groups (some national) that had about 17 people, that started in the basketball courts in Priory Park.

The photo of protestors outside the civic center.

The 30ish people that turned up to a meeting in Rochford one evening. I was one of them ;)

The fact the council is still in the position it was when the decision was made following an election.

The 173 members SAENs page on a popular social site versus the 1167 members on the Yes to Airport Expansion page (I'm not saying that is a referendum, just an observation).

Interesting too that SAEN have now become SAEN Ltd. :)

It's just such a shame that so much of the Tax payers money will be wasted on a process that has already been checked and rubber stamped by the then Secretary of State.
Its also a shame that Mr Amess is so against jobs and investment in this area.

Sorry me again. Too muggy to sleep.

Campbells Dad wrote "SAEN are only against the Extension, not the Expansion, it seems the Echo can not tell the difference between the 2 words."

Really? Perhaps you should listen to Denis walker (SAEN press officer) and the interview he loves to promote from BBC Essex Drive time (its quite amusing in its own right). About 4 minutes in) he quite clearly talks about Airport Expansion.
I think even The Echo could be forgiven for thinking thats what the group are against. ;)

'V' wrote:
So there have been no gatherings of people demonstrating in favour of expansion. Sounds to me then like there's no-one outside of a minority of councillors in favour of expansion.

The Pro-airport people have better things to do than meet in a pokey church hall and fabricate the truth to get people on their side.

There are so many inconsistencies in the anti-airport lobbys statements that I beleve what MP's have to say more!

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Mr Whitehead said “The council took the decision against the will of the vast majority of the people who responded to the consultation."

You mean the majority of the less than 1% of the population of Southend area that responded.

I'm like a broken record aren't I.

V. My argument is an observation based on photos published by the group/s themselves and from my own eyes.
The protest of around 5 groups (some national) that had about 17 people, that started in the basketball courts in Priory Park.

The photo of protestors outside the civic center.

The 30ish people that turned up to a meeting in Rochford one evening. I was one of them ;)

The fact the council is still in the position it was when the decision was made following an election.

The 173 members SAENs page on a popular social site versus the 1167 members on the Yes to Airport Expansion page (I'm not saying that is a referendum, just an observation).

Interesting too that SAEN have now become SAEN Ltd. :)

It's just such a shame that so much of the Tax payers money will be wasted on a process that has already been checked and rubber stamped by the then Secretary of State.
Its also a shame that Mr Amess is so against jobs and investment in this area.

Precisely, NOT a referendum. Just as looking at a photo in a local paper is not a referendum.

Until there IS a referendum neither side can claim a majority of opinion.

I get tired of seeing people on this website claiming to be part of imaginary 'majorities' with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims.

Good morning Max & Basilbrush,
So "the Pro Airport people have better things to do than meet in a pokey church hall"
It seems Basil has and the time and also to count heads on pictures.
We can all listen to our Denis speak on BBC Essex today at around 07.15.
What ever you agree or disagree with, it must be daunting to actually go on a live broadcast. I could never do that as I think I would have ermed to much. It is not that easy to stand up for what you believe to be right. We even have an MP listening to us, which makes a change, they usually only want to be involved in local issues if they get in the press with local businesses.
It is the Extension we are against, but it is so difficult to keep that separate from Expansion as the airport & the councils lump the 2 things together. Slow managed expansion without the excessive night flights would be fine, but I am sure that does not fit into Stobart's business plan.
It will be interesting to see how Stobarts behave once they loss the court case(s), they threw all the toys out of their pram when they lost the similar case with their other airport in Carlisle!

I was under the impression that work on the road re-routing was due to start in the very near future ?

Morning Campbells Dad.

V wrote "I get tired of seeing people on this website claiming to be part of imaginary 'majorities' with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims."

Then perhaps you should read past posts from the antis and SAENs publications to see the mis use of the word majority.
If you also read my posts you will not I have never claimed the 'majority' of people that did not take part in the consultation were in favour or against. Unlike SAEN, I can't answer for them.
I can observe that its vocal anti's that usually speak up (not many of them it would seem).
I can also see the same council working for Southend despite approving the Extension (and other projects).
Thats also a fairly good indicator dont you think ;)


Campbells Dad wrote.."lost the similar case with their other airport in Carlisle!"

Thats a totally different case. I suggest you do some more research.

You say you are against the extension, so clearly you are against better safety, controls on movements (day or night), noise controls and employment in the area?

APR the individual has only applied to the high court for a judicial review against the councils decision (with tax payers money). The planning consent remains therefore work will probably continue as planned.

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Morning Campbells Dad.

V wrote "I get tired of seeing people on this website claiming to be part of imaginary 'majorities' with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims."

Then perhaps you should read past posts from the antis and SAENs publications to see the mis use of the word majority.
If you also read my posts you will not I have never claimed the 'majority' of people that did not take part in the consultation were in favour or against. Unlike SAEN, I can't answer for them.
I can observe that its vocal anti's that usually speak up (not many of them it would seem).
I can also see the same council working for Southend despite approving the Extension (and other projects).
Thats also a fairly good indicator dont you think ;)


Campbells Dad wrote.."lost the similar case with their other airport in Carlisle!"

Thats a totally different case. I suggest you do some more research.

You say you are against the extension, so clearly you are against better safety, controls on movements (day or night), noise controls and employment in the area?

In my post, the one you quoted, I presume you did actually read it?


"Until there IS a referendum NEITHER SIDE can claim a majority of opinion."

So just what is this "legal flaw" in the planning consent which SAEN are claiming?
In their application to be granted a Judicial Review hearing they are obliged to state the legal grounds on which they are making the claim, so come on Denis, just where were SBC in breach of planning law. You say you believe in openness so isn't the 'vast majority' you claim were against the extension entitled to know the basis of your case?
Or is it just that you are clutching at straws in making this late application because they are too stubborn to admit defeat when it's staring them in the face?

I think SAEN want Southend to become a ghost town.

Access were based in Priory Crescent....gone. Many of the Civil Service departments in Victoria Avenue....gone, CE Heath....Gone. All three major employers in Southend. The Airport will in time be THE major employer in Southend, but if SAEN win it will probably spell the end of the expected job boom. Don't let this happen, start the extension ASAP.

And before anyone comments, when I bought my house I knew I was under the flight path.

Don't kill off Southend

Hi Norfolk,
I thought Denis did well.
The legal document for the application for the JR is some 30 pages long, there is no way that this could have been quoted on the radio program, nor would they have let Denis read it out, the radio show do run the agenda to keep interviews short and newsworthy. Of course the trouble is that you can never be sure what you can and can not quote when the legal process has started. All I can say is that the JR process is not that the council made an error in judgement in approving the planning permission, but that they made the decision without all the correct information being available to the councillors at the time that they voted. It was hard enough for us, over a long period, to get at the information. It even took a request under the freedom of information act, before we could access some of this information held by the 2 councils, they do manage to hide it away sometimes, there is so much of it. In regard to it being a late application, you have to wait for all the other processes to have completed and then, and only then, could you start the legal process. The application for a JR being the last step, the council have had plenty of opportunity to offer convincing arguments against our case, but both the council and airport lawyers were unable to do so.
Thus the expensive legal process is the last resort.

Campbell's dad - thanks for that explanation, so far as it goes.
I can accept that it was difficult for SAEN to obtain certain information, but that doesn't mean the Councillors didn't have access to it surely?
So, what information was not available to the Councillors when they voted?
I've thoroughly read the Planning Officers' report to the Planning Committee and there's nothing missing which has subsequently been revealed, so why are you keeping this missing 'information' a secret from us all?
If you really want to gain support for your action you would surely want to reveal this deviousness to everyone.

all these people who are campaigning against the airport expansion must not have anything better to do with there lives.

Concerned in Southend wrote:

LocalBoy wrote: I've lived in the area 42 years. The airport has been here a lot longer than that. So hands up anyone who moved to the area not knowing there was an airport? And hands up anybody who didn't know that there have been a multitude of plans to develop the airport over the last 42 years (that I know of)? Finally hands up those of you who bought your houses believing that the airport would never change? I don't believe there will be too many people with their hands up. So do any of us really have a case when we start objecting to the changes that are being made?

Amen to that! . The improvements to Southend Airport are *already* bringing new jobs and new prospects to the area. Aviation companies are creating apprenticeships for our youth that have /no/ prospects of a local job otherwise, the new railway station has brought in civil service jobs and look at all the businesses starting to grow around the area; new hotels and the like all giving us vital employment opportunities. Expanding the airport is nothing but a good thing.

could not agree more, now would all the people moaning about the airport growth please shut up, or move

if David Amess does take the petition forward he will lose my vote and i hope many others

As two of my previous posts have very quickly disappeared unfairly I think, as the info i posted is in the public domain i will try again.

I think that someone who moves to a road very near the airport in Rochford, in 2001 has a cheek becoming a Director of an anti airport company.

HOPE THAT GETS PAST THE CENSORS.
when I see some of the rubbish that does not get removed from these comments pages it makes you wonder.

What a lot of intolerant people there are on this site!

And what a silly argument - "There's been an airport here for years so don't complain!" It's like using the existence of a small car repair business to justify the building of a 6-lane superhighway.

Eastwoodbury Lane has been in its present form for an awful lot longer than the airport has been there and I'd rather like to keep it as it is.

As for David Amess, I reckon that if he'd supported the airport he would have lost him a lot more votes last May, given that it's his constituents whose lives are going to be blighted it the expansion goes ahead.

Good luck to SAEN. Let's hope the courts will listen to reason because the Council never does.

Robertfs, after Amess's last couple of years he should have already lost your vote.

'V' wrote:

BASILBRUSH wrote: Morning Campbells Dad. V wrote "I get tired of seeing people on this website claiming to be part of imaginary 'majorities' with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims." Then perhaps you should read past posts from the antis and SAENs publications to see the mis use of the word majority. If you also read my posts you will not I have never claimed the 'majority' of people that did not take part in the consultation were in favour or against. Unlike SAEN, I can't answer for them. I can observe that its vocal anti's that usually speak up (not many of them it would seem). I can also see the same council working for Southend despite approving the Extension (and other projects). Thats also a fairly good indicator dont you think ;) Campbells Dad wrote.."lost the similar case with their other airport in Carlisle!" Thats a totally different case. I suggest you do some more research. You say you are against the extension, so clearly you are against better safety, controls on movements (day or night), noise controls and employment in the area?

In my post, the one you quoted, I presume you did actually read it? "Until there IS a referendum NEITHER SIDE can claim a majority of opinion."

V I quite agree. I was responding to your post whilst making a point that SAEN are the ones constantly using the word majority without foundation and 'in my opinion' evidence that would suggest otherwise.

Unbelievable!!!!! I would wager money on the fact this is being funded by legal aid but happy to be corrected..... If SAEN has so much support, it would be staggering and shameful of SAEN if its group of NIMBYs were funding its fight by legal aid on a techicality in the planning process (which I understand the Judicial Review process means). This is absolute madness, the planning application has been approved locally and nationally by the Secretary of State!!!! What is happening to this country?!!!! Will the last sane person to leave Southend, please turn the lights off to save the planet!!!!! There will only be NIMBYs and tumbleweed left!!!!!!!!

well looking at Companies House, these guys have already had a name change because they initially were regisistered as "Stop Airport Extension No ltd"

I think i prefer that one.

j-w wrote:
well looking at Companies House, these guys have already had a name change because they initially were regisistered as "Stop Airport Extension No ltd" I think i prefer that one.

Could not agree more, they cannot even register their name correctly!!! I am sure there is a saying about a brewery and organisation.......H
mmm!
Why has SAEN become a limited company? Worried about losing a JR and subsequent costs/damages? Sounds like a defeated challenge before its even started!!!!!

bait digger wrote:
What a lot of intolerant people there are on this site! And what a silly argument - "There's been an airport here for years so don't complain!" It's like using the existence of a small car repair business to justify the building of a 6-lane superhighway. Eastwoodbury Lane has been in its present form for an awful lot longer than the airport has been there and I'd rather like to keep it as it is. As for David Amess, I reckon that if he'd supported the airport he would have lost him a lot more votes last May, given that it's his constituents whose lives are going to be blighted it the expansion goes ahead. Good luck to SAEN. Let's hope the courts will listen to reason because the Council never does.

go back to digging up worms!

I have just heard SAENs renowned press officer on the radio. Interesting he accuses a councillor of scaremongering. Has he looked at his 'companies' posters recently????????

If SAEN win, what are the options open to the airport? If SAEN lose, are there further legal options open to them?
At what point will it all be "final", one way or the other?

As I understand it, if and it's a big if. The process was found to be flawed and permission revoked then the airport could reapply, and the council would have to ensure any 'flaws' were rectified.
But as it was scrutinised by Mr Denham to check for this, it's a bit academic and a waste of all our money.

I don't know how long all this can take. But the planning permission still stands so no change to the status quo yet.

That's only from my own brief research from a government sight.

BASILBRUSH wrote:
As I understand it, if and it's a big if. The process was found to be flawed and permission revoked then the airport could reapply, and the council would have to ensure any 'flaws' were rectified.
But as it was scrutinised by Mr Denham to check for this, it's a bit academic and a waste of all our money.

I don't know how long all this can take. But the planning permission still stands so no change to the status quo yet.

That's only from my own brief research from a government sight.

Scrutinised by Mr Denham! the only thing this two faced creep scrutinised was his receipt for his claim for post it notes, to make certain he had screwed the last penny out of the taxpayers. The fact was the elections were near and there was a high possibility he could be out on his ear, so he had to make certain his job options were kept open.

Is that SAENs prosecution statement?

The BBC are supposed to remain natural and not shoe a bias towards one or the other so why did they not have somebody from the airport on to put their side of the issue.

What’s the betting if they have the airport on one day and do not invite SAEN they start bleating about not being asked on as well.

These protest groups are a law unto themselves say the slightest thing about them they do not like and it’s “we will get our solicitor on to you”

As for getting Legal Aid what a farce, I only hope the Council win and they are forced to pay ALL costs I do not want my tax to fund some group that want to destroy job creation.
The Legal Aid system should be changed to stop protest groups (or their members) form getting their hands on the money it should be pay first refund later if you win.

With SAEN becoming SAEN Ltd will this make them liable to company’s tax and making their books open to public inspection, What assets do they hold? What happens to the money they have raised if they fold?


When the papers are lodged they should be come public detailing exactly where SAEN say the granting of permission was illegal.

Lets just hope its not something petty like forgetting to cross a T or dot an i

'V' wrote:
So there have been no gatherings of people demonstrating in favour of expansion. Sounds to me then like there's no-one outside of a minority of councillors in favour of expansion.

put your car in gear and move with the times. When do people demonstrate and meet to support something good thats going to happen. Answer never..........

RobertFS wrote:
if David Amess does take the petition forward he will lose my vote and i hope many others

I think one should question if he is even working in the intrests of the majority that put him in power. This petition will not have anything like the 50% of the people he represents so maybe he should stand down.

Nebs wrote:
If SAEN win, what are the options open to the airport? If SAEN lose, are there further legal options open to them?
At what point will it all be "final", one way or the other?

It is, more or less, final as it stands now. It is only the hot air being blown by SAEN and that Amess bloke that is keeping the last cinders, of whatever little is left of their campaign, from going out.

I don't think they really know what they are letting themselves in for applying for a high court judicial review to be heard in the House of Lords.

Firstly the time element with so many cases going forward it could take anything up to 10 years before their case is heard.

Secondly if they loose they will end up not only paying their own judicial fees but also those of the other party who could employ up to 6 barristers to represent them.

In the end they could end up paying over £100,000 for their case and end up having to sell their houses to pay the costs.

I doubt if they have sufficient funds and there is no such thing as 'no win no fee' for high court judicial reviews and appeals.

faldosenior wrote:
I don't think they really know what they are letting themselves in for applying for a high court judicial review to be heard in the House of Lords. Firstly the time element with so many cases going forward it could take anything up to 10 years before their case is heard. Secondly if they loose they will end up not only paying their own judicial fees but also those of the other party who could employ up to 6 barristers to represent them. In the end they could end up paying over £100,000 for their case and end up having to sell their houses to pay the costs. I doubt if they have sufficient funds and there is no such thing as 'no win no fee' for high court judicial reviews and appeals.

Might be why its now SAEN Ltd loose and imediatly put it in administration or liquidate the company.

Where are all the jobs? This is supposed to be the busiest time at the airport and yet a quick look at their own website tells me that there is not one single job available.





Options include many of the following:

Air Traffic Controllers
Airport Administration and Finance
Aircraft Engineering and Servicing
Rescue and Firefighting
Passenger Handling
Piloting and Navigation
Air Steward and Catering
Ground Maintenance
Business, Marketing and Development


Job Vacancies

There are currently no vacancies available.

Leon C wrote:
Where are all the jobs? This is supposed to be the busiest time at the airport and yet a quick look at their own website tells me that there is not one single job available. Options include many of the following: Air Traffic Controllers Airport Administration and Finance Aircraft Engineering and Servicing Rescue and Firefighting Passenger Handling Piloting and Navigation Air Steward and Catering Ground Maintenance Business, Marketing and Development Job Vacancies There are currently no vacancies available.

Why do you think their should be jobs advertised now?
The runway extension still hasn't been built and a look at the time scales reported in the press. Why take staff on without the work to give them?
As for marketing and development there was only an article a few months ago apart a new apointment.

Many of the jobs such as Stewards, pilots etc. will be down to any airlines, you are unlikely to see those until an airline has committed to Southend, and if you visit their site.

Dont forget that the construction of the station, tower and the new terminal are creating and keeping locals in work directly or indirectly.


lol security word = want-work I am sure whoever programmed these to come up had a little bit of humour.

I’m sure that ordinary members of the public wouldn’t bother reading the rants and raves posted here. It’s ironic that the pro-airport sponsors who orchestrate posts here even think that’s so, it’s a sign of how desperate they are to crush any comment that challenges their “smoke and mirror” claims they make about prosperity. Why don’t you all just stick to swapping aeroplane pictures on your pro-airport website? How very exciting for you all.

Meantime in the grownup world people who believe this will have a negative impact on the local environment are challenging the decision to give this project planning consent. If it’s quashed, and I hope it is, there must be a Public Enquiry into the council’s dealings, the sale and development of this “White Elephant”. The airport has been a constant drain on local residents; its cost local people about four times the amount of money required to renovate Southend’s Pier and to regenerate the Town Centre over the years. So why do we allow it to continue?

The council sold it to a developer for a £1! Good deal if it stopped the haemorrhage of public funds going into it, but it didn’t. Instead our council sold part of the prime real-estate for 5 million pounds and gave that to the developer as a fund for future development of the site! What a great use of a public asset that was!!

Despite all this over zealous financial support from our council the claim now is that it’s a “lame-duck” unless we let it gobble up more land and even more public resources in letting it become bigger. And the claims made for it bringing a prosperous future are based on “ever shifting sands”, laughingly described as “facts and figures” produced in support of it. Facts and figures that do not stand up to scrutiny, but facts and figures that will now be scrutinised by a higher authority.

When it suits the airport and council to say it, the airport has no future unless we extend it, but then when it suits them they say the air-traffic there will be worse if we don’t extend it because there is no control! Their desperation is clear enough to see, but what are the vested interests that are driving it? Is it just profit? Or is it an ego building monument to just a few local people?

But whatever the motive if the decision is quashed and I believe it will be quashed this is just the start. Because there must follow a full Public Enquiry into the whole sad issue of the waste of resources this “white elephant” has gobbled up over the years!

Well said,

The proposed business park and its 7000 jobs will only go-ahead IF the runway is extened so SAEN, Amess if you sucseed in your goal to block the re-birth of the airport thank yopou foor destroying 7000+ job opportunities.

As a vocal anti airport spokesman in the past Sealherder it's interesting to see you criticise people for posting on here.
The real world is the Airport is a valuable asset to this town and SAENs scaremongering and attempt to quash the development will turn out to be a total waste of tax payers money.

Your friends in SAEN have manipulated the truth in order to scare people. The posters on their site are just a small example of this.

The lawyer hired must be rubbing his hands together to get this job with legal aid funding behind it.

Well gosh Bas, I can leave all the scare tactics to you and your little camp of followers I think. .

Your little "camp" of the brave enlightened few battling the many "dastardly" SAEN protesters, who must clearly be in league with the devil, you seem far too desperate to me to crush any hint of support for them. So you all must be worried over at Stobart world?


The Thames Gateway Strategic report by ECC forecast 200 to 300 local jobs being created “at the airport” during the construction of the rail station phase. Where are these new local jobs Bas? What a great victory for the local unemployed people of this town eh? To see Stobart bring in its own constructions companies to avoid employing any of the local unemployed?

Your claims for the airport creating all these new jobs for local people is just balderdash! These claims were balderdash in 2003 when they first appeared and its still balderdash now! Even the council’s paid exterior advisors are saying the proposals in JAPP don’t add up to it being a planning document. It was a “kite” they were flying to guage public opinion and when public opinion went against it they “cut the string”.But you lot keep quoting JAPP’s promises mantra-like, like reciting from the bible without any credible verification except your own opinions!

It'll all become crystal once the judge gets his teeth into the so called "facts and figures" of the plan at Judicial Review. The facts and figures that kept morphing from unprofitable, into profitable and then back again. It’s a joke whoever committed our local resources to the whole JAPP process based on an airport developers wish list should be fired!

But it’s still great fun to read the bellicose bleating of the really scared on here Bas. So keep on bleating because we know we are succeeding!

Ha ha Sealherder. If you believe I am concerned about SAENs latest game you don't know me.
But then then you seemed to have already made wild assumptions about me anyway. ;)

Why would a company with a specialist arm just employ local people to contruct a specialist building ?
It wouldn't make financial sense, and the contraction workers contribute to the local economy through hotels, and spending their cash here.
Your argument is as usual flawed.

Anyway Sealherder, for someone so critical of posting here, you are as usual very vocal.

Hit a raw never have I Bas? Oh dear sorry, but glad that at last you have agreed that the only benefit to the area so far is the spending power of the few Stobart workers. Hardly a "regeneration" of the area is it?

But at least you have made a start Bas, and a little more therapy with me and you will be free of your denial problems for good!

Take care now, your "new friend".. Hehehe..

Sealherder got it a bit wrong there... as there aren't many SAEN types at all. Just look at how few nutters turned up at that Priory Park demonstration, even when combined with other related organisations like SKIPP (basically SKIPP, PPPS and SAEN are just Denis Walker, his mates and a few local NIMBYs he's scared enough with his silly flyers). In fact, wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the antis are the same person with different logins.

Hohoho..

Well I make it only 6 nutters on here Danny, that continue to vent their spleens over how wonderful the airport will be.. And I would guess by the grammar half of those are the same person! That probably makes you all even less relevant than SAEN is, doesn't it?.. Wouldn’t you agree?

And at least SAEN can fill a village hall with real people Danny, where do the "pro's" here meet up? Back of the airport car park swapping plane pictures is my guess?

Give me a break, this is a community service I am performing here, keeping you all away from the more intelligent threads.

Post something sensible "please"..

A village hall! Its hardly a representation of the Southend area populus.
Sealherder keep trying. I am off on holiday this evening so won't be able to play for a while.
Why do you even think people that support the airport would want to meet up and discuss how happy they are? Anti's in anything are always shout louder. In SAENs case its more of a whisper.
The planning permission stands. The construction continues, and the opportunities will come.
I shall continue to write in support of any projects in this town that seek to benefit us and the economy.

Take it easy. Any Tigermoth flights planned in the near future? ;)

Thanks for putting the debate back on to such an intellectual level J-W. Just shows what you can do when you try hard to articulate your argument.

Now if that's the entire quill of arrows you have I'll bid you all good day, till the next adult debate here.

I've kept you all away from the unsuspecting public for too long and my sacrifice has been above and beyond the call of duty.

And do be careful when playing with the traffic J-W.. Basil might be driving to the airport for his hols!

Bon Voyage! Bas, and remember to wear your hat, we don’t want that planet size brain of yours getting heat stroke! :-)

sealherder, looking at your posts it is no wonder you only came second in the local elections, How did you not manage to oust a Tory in the area that is likely to be one of the most affected by the Runway extension? 3 Tory councillors in Belfairs, looks like your own "ward" aren't even that bothered by the Airport.

Oh contraire J-W you do like to turn this debate into “this is your life” don’t you…Be careful someone could be outside of your door right now with their big blue book on you, and clutching their manifesto? Hahahaha better go and take a quick peek through the curtains! Hahahahaha..

"You" chose to start making it about the person(s) who comment here, not me.
I think the extension and expansion will be absolutely wonderful, the planners and the ex secretary for state also think it is a good plan and worth doing and it looks like the good voters of Southend agree.

If you think a general election is a referendum on the airport you are even more deluded than you appear to be J-W.. It wasn't, and its you I am afraid that doesn't seem to like "it" even when you think you have me at a disadvantage. How flattering of you and your mates to think about reseraching me? You all need to get out more because you are all very confused if you think I'm worthy of your ground breaking investigations about me! And get a life!

As an ordinary member of the public I have not read any cogent arguement from the Anti's apart from the fact they don't like airports.
.
Which is a pity for them because this one is about to get bigger.
.
Most of their words are just disparaging remarks on other people.

I was talking about local elections sealherder, the ones where saen, skipp, pps etc where going to get rid of the evil aeroplane loving, road building conservative councillors. seems most voters didn't mind them, therefore they must also like their local plans and transport policies.

Sorry to disappoint you J-W but if you include the number of votes cast for the independent candidate there was a clear majority of folk in Belfairs who voted for candidates standing “against” the airport extension.

I do hope you don't do anything too important in real life J-W because if that's the way you analyse data we are all in trouble!

But it probably explains why you are so easily flim-flamed by the airport figures.

Nice try, but it’s back to doing a bit more digging for some real dirt on the internet for you I'm afraid.. hahahaha...

I've seen your election video, that's enough dirt to scare anyone away from the internet, a real video nasty.

Max Impact wrote:
Well said,

The proposed business park and its 7000 jobs will only go-ahead IF the runway is extened so SAEN, Amess if you sucseed in your goal to block the re-birth of the airport thank yopou foor destroying 7000+ job opportunities.

Perhaps Max, as you seem to be so certain of the exact number of jobs that will be created, could you furnish us with a jobs breakdown of the 7000, don’t worry about the + unless you can round it up to 8000,give or take a few. PS, While you’re talking to the man upstairs, see if he will let me have next week’s lottery numbers, will be much appreciated.

vanilla ice wrote:

Max Impact wrote: Well said, The proposed business park and its 7000 jobs will only go-ahead IF the runway is extened so SAEN, Amess if you sucseed in your goal to block the re-birth of the airport thank yopou foor destroying 7000+ job opportunities.

Perhaps Max, as you seem to be so certain of the exact number of jobs that will be created, could you furnish us with a jobs breakdown of the 7000, don’t worry about the + unless you can round it up to 8000,give or take a few. PS, While you’re talking to the man upstairs, see if he will let me have next week’s lottery numbers, will be much appreciated.

Business parks offer a diverse range of employment genre, at this present point in the space time continuum and with the Tardis currently on loan to Dr Who I am unable to say what companies would be opening up on the proposed business parks that are proposed as part of the airport expansion.

Once the loan is over I shall endeavor to enter the time vortex to find out just for you.

How the bleep should I know. You are clearly anti-airport expansion so have fallen for all the stuff put out by SAEN the latest post proclaims "UNLIMITED NIGHT FLIGHTS" which is a lie have they not read the restriction the airport would put in place.

SO let me ask you a question so far nobody from the anti lot have giving a direct answer.

Have you or do you ever fly off on either holiday or for work related reasons if so why is it OK for you to fly over somebodys house but not for somebody to fly over yours?

Interesting comments about the 3 councillors of Belfairs not intereested.
2 of them have been the most active participents in the complete affair. They have chosen not to show it.

Sealherder wrote:
Hohoho.. Well I make it only 6 nutters on here Danny, that continue to vent their spleens over how wonderful the airport will be.. And I would guess by the grammar half of those are the same person! That probably makes you all even less relevant than SAEN is, doesn't it?.. Wouldn’t you agree? And at least SAEN can fill a village hall with real people Danny, where do the "pro's" here meet up? Back of the airport car park swapping plane pictures is my guess? Give me a break, this is a community service I am performing here, keeping you all away from the more intelligent threads. Post something sensible "please"..

I'd recommend sprucing up your own grammar before trying to launch ill-advised critiques of that of others. There is no apostrophe in the word 'pros'. And a small church hall is not a representative sample, especially when a photo of the audience reveals it is just a sea of grey heads.

“an ill-advised critique” based on the misuse of an apostrophe eh Danny? Wow! I must reread Eats Shoots & Leaves that’s obvious, but hang on Teach! Are you allowed to be overtly ageist if you are a teacher Danny? Don’t the opinions of one of the largest and growing groups in our society count any longer if they have grey hair? What about the old baldies and the folks that wear wigs that are pro the airport should they be denied a say too? Or is just old anti airport people that you think have earned their “wedge” and “had the best of their lives” and they should simply move out the way of “progress”? Umm interesting, but a dumb argument and thankfully it won’t be up to you to decide which age groups do and don’t get a say in what is still a democracy, matey! And as the democratic process is still ongoing we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we. But I am sure that everyone here who’s over 50 really appreciates your point of view that we shouldn’t have a say in the matter. No! Sorry I am kidding about that last bit.

Sealherder wrote:
“an ill-advised critique” based on the misuse of an apostrophe eh Danny? Wow! I must reread Eats Shoots & Leaves that’s obvious, but hang on Teach! Are you allowed to be overtly ageist if you are a teacher Danny? Don’t the opinions of one of the largest and growing groups in our society count any longer if they have grey hair? What about the old baldies and the folks that wear wigs that are pro the airport should they be denied a say too? Or is just old anti airport people that you think have earned their “wedge” and “had the best of their lives” and they should simply move out the way of “progress”? Umm interesting, but a dumb argument and thankfully it won’t be up to you to decide which age groups do and don’t get a say in what is still a democracy, matey! And as the democratic process is still ongoing we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we. But I am sure that everyone here who’s over 50 really appreciates your point of view that we shouldn’t have a say in the matter. No! Sorry I am kidding about that last bit.

Lighten up sunshine. The point was that the meeting, and the make up of anti development groups as a whole, is rarely representative of society, as they are invariably composed of people who have the spare time on their hands. I wouldn't want to disparaging the over 50s as a whole, and I'm sure there are many who are in favour of the airport.

Thanks Danny, I do take this thread pretty much lightheartedly, I think it’s funny that some of the more pompous posters here really believe they are being listened to seriously and are affecting public opinion. That's ridiculous!
It’s also ridiculous that the airport persuaded the council, its officers and its members to issue this planning consent on the basis of what amounts to be unsupportable claims.
Believe me when you start to look into it seriously, this proposal has fewer benefits than can be believed.

PS, I note you don't like screaming kids in tree houses either, any age group you do like??? I presume over 18 but under 60? hahahahaha... only kidding!

Sealherder wrote:
Thanks Danny, I do take this thread pretty much lightheartedly, I think it’s funny that some of the more pompous posters here really believe they are being listened to seriously and are affecting public opinion. That's ridiculous! It’s also ridiculous that the airport persuaded the council, its officers and its members to issue this planning consent on the basis of what amounts to be unsupportable claims. Believe me when you start to look into it seriously, this proposal has fewer benefits than can be believed. PS, I note you don't like screaming kids in tree houses either, any age group you do like??? I presume over 18 but under 60? hahahahaha... only kidding!

Well I'm 24 myself, so I suppose so! Haha... only messing - I'm just hopeful about the airport. Delivered correctly, it could be a real asset in terms of being a boost to local business. I don't expect the effects to be seen overnight though - it'll take years for it to establish itself and for the business park to be developed and occupied.

Sealherder wrote:
Hohoho.. Well I make it only 6 nutters on here Danny, that continue to vent their spleens over how wonderful the airport will be.. And I would guess by the grammar half of those are the same person! That probably makes you all even less relevant than SAEN is, doesn't it?.. Wouldn’t you agree? And at least SAEN can fill a village hall with real people Danny, where do the "pro's" here meet up? Back of the airport car park swapping plane pictures is my guess? Give me a break, this is a community service I am performing here, keeping you all away from the more intelligent threads. Post something sensible "please"..

Sealherder
There you go again assuming! That a hall full of people all support the SAEN cause . I have been to these meetings to listen to what was said and I dont agree with any of it and neither did the people I went with.Much in the same context that Mr A mess is putting his anti airport partition forward he just assumes hes doing the right thing with no factual proof to back up that is what his locals want him to do he has not even had the decency to ask us , or looked at how the local councillors voted on the issue then acted accorddingly.

Sealherder wrote:
If you think a general election is a referendum on the airport you are even more deluded than you appear to be J-W.. It wasn't, and its you I am afraid that doesn't seem to like "it" even when you think you have me at a disadvantage. How flattering of you and your mates to think about reseraching me? You all need to get out more because you are all very confused if you think I'm worthy of your ground breaking investigations about me! And get a life!

The general election no ,but the local ones held at the same time 100% yes !!!!! I could not see any anti airport voting swing that the powers to be from SAEN promised us . Did you sealherder?

Nice job for a local interested in planes here: http://www.stobartgr
oup.co.uk/Careers/Al
l-Vacancies/JobVacan
cy/Air-Traffic-Contr
ol-Assistant/