Residents press for airport compensation

5:15pm Monday 10th September 2012 in News

Claims – campainger Jon Fuller addresses the meeting Claims – campainger Jon Fuller addresses the meeting

A NEW residents’ group has been formed to fight for compensation for homeowners who think Southend Airport ’s expansion has devalued their homes.

More than 300 people packed into a meeting to hear about possible claims they could make if their homes were under the airport’s flight path.

Three surveyors are offering to value of people’s homes and seek compensation under the Land Compensation Act if it turns out they have been affected by the increase in air traffic.

Almost all of the residents at Friday’s meeting, at Eastwood Community Centre, agreed to join a new pressure group.

They heard from Michael Marriott, a Westcliff -based chartered surveyor who, so far, is representing 450 claimants.

He told the meeting claimants would have to prove their home had been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes. Householders would have to submit claims within a year of completion of the runway extension, on March 8.

He added: “The certainty is they have a right to claim. “We won’t know about an entitlement to compensation until we have considered the evidence after March 8 next year.”

If surveyors and the airport cannot agree on a valuation, claimants will be able to take their cases to court, where a solicitor has already offered to act on a no-win, no-fee basis.

The new, as yet, un-named group, will operate independently from Stop Airport Expansion Now, which campaigned long and hard to stop the expansion.

Stop Airport Expansion Now member Jon Fuller told the meeting: “The vast majority of people here have probably lost thousands of pounds on the value of their homes.

“It’s a question of business. Get the money you are owed.”

However, Adam Jones, Southend councillor for St Laurence ward, said he feared residents were being given a false hope of compensation.

Mr Jones, who was also at the meeting, said: “I have an open mind, but people are being led into a set of actions, thinking they are going to be given a form of compensation, but they don’t know when, from where and how much.”

Comments (151)

5:40pm Mon 10 Sep 12

dh1968 says...

It would be interesting to know how many people lived in the area before the airport became operational. As far as i'm aware it became an airfield in WW1,and went on to become an official airport in 1935. In its heyday of the 60's and 70's it was the third largest airport in the UK and still the third largest for passenger numbers by the end of the 70s.
If you don't like aircraft and aircraft noise don't move close to an airport.
And yes flights do come out my house daily !!!!
It would be interesting to know how many people lived in the area before the airport became operational. As far as i'm aware it became an airfield in WW1,and went on to become an official airport in 1935. In its heyday of the 60's and 70's it was the third largest airport in the UK and still the third largest for passenger numbers by the end of the 70s. If you don't like aircraft and aircraft noise don't move close to an airport. And yes flights do come out my house daily !!!! dh1968

5:41pm Mon 10 Sep 12

WhateverS says...

I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last WhateverS

5:44pm Mon 10 Sep 12

WhateverS says...

Oops should of read the comment above
Before posting Soz
Oops should of read the comment above Before posting Soz WhateverS

5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Well said.

How many people will just jump on the bandwaggon and go for money? Heard somebody with a flat near the sealife centre looking at going after some!

They said 400 people turned up but how many diffrent house holds were there? far fewer I bet.

Some guy on the radio was demanding to know why the council had not arranged the meeting.

How do they prove the amount of value their house has "lost" they should get more than one vaulation and let the airport do the same.

One of these GiveMe's even went as far to boast that there were out to bankrupt Stobarts... So sod the thousands who would loose their jobs, what a love bunch of people, as long as they have money in their fetted hands they are happy and to hell the works.

YOU moved in AFTER the airpoer was operating get a life.
Well said. How many people will just jump on the bandwaggon and go for money? Heard somebody with a flat near the sealife centre looking at going after some! They said 400 people turned up but how many diffrent house holds were there? far fewer I bet. Some guy on the radio was demanding to know why the council had not arranged the meeting. How do they prove the amount of value their house has "lost" they should get more than one vaulation and let the airport do the same. One of these GiveMe's even went as far to boast that there were out to bankrupt Stobarts... So sod the thousands who would loose their jobs, what a love bunch of people, as long as they have money in their fetted hands they are happy and to hell the works. YOU moved in AFTER the airpoer was operating get a life. Max Impact

6:00pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jayman says...

there is a legal precedent for compensation.

anyone who owned a house prior to the expansion may be awarded a handsome sum of money.

good luck to them.

i suppose this is the only way that the locals will benefit from a share in the companies profits at the cost of there house price and standard of living.

good on them..
there is a legal precedent for compensation. anyone who owned a house prior to the expansion may be awarded a handsome sum of money. good luck to them. i suppose this is the only way that the locals will benefit from a share in the companies profits at the cost of there house price and standard of living. good on them.. jayman

6:06pm Mon 10 Sep 12

sensiblelos says...

,
, sensiblelos

6:12pm Mon 10 Sep 12

aduksquack says...

WhateverS wrote:
I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.
[quote][p][bold]WhateverS[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last[/p][/quote]The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not. aduksquack

6:18pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jolllyboy says...

Time that the noise was measured by a very independent body as I feel that the noise level exceeds acceptable, maybe legal, limits for a heavily populated area. It certainly is unhealthy. Times change and so do planes. these are unacceptably high noise planes - is that bad maintenance or bad flying. The idea that they take off over Rochford, or turn over the sea and that Blenheim School would only notice a few extra decibels is absolute rot. More power to their elbow in compensation claims but I think they would rather not have the noise. Happy BBQ's next year with all the flights. Enjoy yours - some people cant.
Time that the noise was measured by a very independent body as I feel that the noise level exceeds acceptable, maybe legal, limits for a heavily populated area. It certainly is unhealthy. Times change and so do planes. these are unacceptably high noise planes - is that bad maintenance or bad flying. The idea that they take off over Rochford, or turn over the sea and that Blenheim School would only notice a few extra decibels is absolute rot. More power to their elbow in compensation claims but I think they would rather not have the noise. Happy BBQ's next year with all the flights. Enjoy yours - some people cant. jolllyboy

6:20pm Mon 10 Sep 12

emcee says...

Quote: "... claimants would have to prove their home had been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes ..."
-
Good luck with that then. You are going to need it.

Quote: "Adam Jones, Southend councillor for St Laurence ward, said he feared residents were being given a false hope of compensation...
...“I have an open mind, but people are being led into a set of actions, thinking they are going to be given a form of compensation, but they don’t know when, from where and how much.” "
-
Absolutely correct.
Quote: "... claimants would have to prove their home had been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes ..." - Good luck with that then. You are going to need it. Quote: "Adam Jones, Southend councillor for St Laurence ward, said he feared residents were being given a false hope of compensation... ...“I have an open mind, but people are being led into a set of actions, thinking they are going to be given a form of compensation, but they don’t know when, from where and how much.” " - Absolutely correct. emcee

6:25pm Mon 10 Sep 12

ontheblink says...

More free publicity for ambulance chaser Marriott.

The man is a parasite on real business.
More free publicity for ambulance chaser Marriott. The man is a parasite on real business. ontheblink

6:25pm Mon 10 Sep 12

WhateverS says...

aduksquack wrote:
WhateverS wrote:
I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.
Which expansion are you talking about it has seen a number expansions and regarding louder jets are you talking out of something you sit on
The planes now are far more quieter back in the early 80s they shook the roof tiles
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhateverS[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last[/p][/quote]The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.[/p][/quote]Which expansion are you talking about it has seen a number expansions and regarding louder jets are you talking out of something you sit on The planes now are far more quieter back in the early 80s they shook the roof tiles WhateverS

6:27pm Mon 10 Sep 12

aduksquack says...

An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?
An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on? aduksquack

6:28pm Mon 10 Sep 12

WhateverS says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Time that the noise was measured by a very independent body as I feel that the noise level exceeds acceptable, maybe legal, limits for a heavily populated area. It certainly is unhealthy. Times change and so do planes. these are unacceptably high noise planes - is that bad maintenance or bad flying. The idea that they take off over Rochford, or turn over the sea and that Blenheim School would only notice a few extra decibels is absolute rot. More power to their elbow in compensation claims but I think they would rather not have the noise. Happy BBQ's next year with all the flights. Enjoy yours - some people cant.
Go to Uxbridge and experience the noise there
It's lasts 10 secs at most
Here's an idea Move
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Time that the noise was measured by a very independent body as I feel that the noise level exceeds acceptable, maybe legal, limits for a heavily populated area. It certainly is unhealthy. Times change and so do planes. these are unacceptably high noise planes - is that bad maintenance or bad flying. The idea that they take off over Rochford, or turn over the sea and that Blenheim School would only notice a few extra decibels is absolute rot. More power to their elbow in compensation claims but I think they would rather not have the noise. Happy BBQ's next year with all the flights. Enjoy yours - some people cant.[/p][/quote]Go to Uxbridge and experience the noise there It's lasts 10 secs at most Here's an idea Move WhateverS

6:52pm Mon 10 Sep 12

southendshrimper says...

So here we go, the muppets band waggon has started. Any one will jump on the band waggon where there is a "chance" they can get some money. Just think they lose & then who will they blame SBC? Stobart? the Judge? or will they look for the next band waggon.
Wait for them to say my house is worth x now only x. hmm just thinking if there house price is up can Stobart sue for the diffrance?

So jayman you trying to sue? I'll ask again What would you do if someone in your family got a job at the airport? disown them, want the airport to close & there for lose there job or be happy that they have a job.

Bet you still dont answer,
So here we go, the muppets band waggon has started. Any one will jump on the band waggon where there is a "chance" they can get some money. Just think they lose & then who will they blame SBC? Stobart? the Judge? or will they look for the next band waggon. Wait for them to say my house is worth x now only x. hmm just thinking if there house price is up can Stobart sue for the diffrance? So jayman you trying to sue? I'll ask again What would you do if someone in your family got a job at the airport? disown them, want the airport to close & there for lose there job or be happy that they have a job. Bet you still dont answer, southendshrimper

6:57pm Mon 10 Sep 12

sensiblelos says...

It seems the reference to Thursdays Echo "Airport backlash" is not online, for once the Echo provided in part an unbiased view.

Echo reporter David Tranyan visited a home in treelawn drive and witnessed the nuisance first hand.he said" the low tearing sound of an easyjet plane passing above was similar volume to that of construction workers digging up a road. It only lasted about 30 seconds but to hear it at least three times before 7am would disturb most peoples sleep"

Well done the echo for finally providing some factual comment on the disruption that Easyjet/the airport are causing in this area. Those who do not live under the flight path, lucky you its not in your back yard.

So to this issue of compensation. Its nothing to do with whether someone has lived in the area before or after the airport was built. The relevant point is whether a person lived in the area before the expansion and the planning permission was granted.

So if you are lucky enough not to live under the flight path and you do not get woken by a sound similar to construction workers 3 times every day before 7 am well done, if you do then you should have right to complain and also be able to claim compensation for the nuisance that is being caused by the airport.

As for Stephen Aylen, independent Cllr on the committee looking into airport noise why is he on this committee?? he notes" none of my residents are against the airport" knock on my door at election time and i will tell you i am and i know many others who also oppose the exapnsion! when and if values are reduced due to expansion will this cllr change his tune when his constituents start complaining about declining values.

I really hope that house values are not reduced due to the airport but if they are people have the right to expect compensation. But those people also need to be made aware that if a complaint is made this will need to be disclosed if they want to sell their home. So yet again, those under the flight path are disadvantaged by voicing their opinion, perhaps there are many more people who wish to complain but are simply to afraid to do so.

It seems the Council are denying the right for the residents to complain or they are just disregarding the complaints suggesting these planes overhead are from heathrow or stanstead, i wonder why people feel disenfranchised!

A lot is being said about the compensation act, whatever that is, but in my view the Council as owners of the airport have a moral duty to listen to those residents who have been disadvantaged. not to be told, its nothing to do with us and its airport issue, no its not its a council issue, permission was granted by the Council as owners so why don't they consider the implications to all of those disadvantaged, after all its well documented that they say that most residents are benefiting from the expansion, those who are not should also be considered, its their moral duty to listen and not to fob us off.

The Council are benefiting finacially from the expansion, those who are disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the expansion they just want the right to be compensated , that is fair and just......
It seems the reference to Thursdays Echo "Airport backlash" is not online, for once the Echo provided in part an unbiased view. Echo reporter David Tranyan visited a home in treelawn drive and witnessed the nuisance first hand.he said" the low tearing sound of an easyjet plane passing above was similar volume to that of construction workers digging up a road. It only lasted about 30 seconds but to hear it at least three times before 7am would disturb most peoples sleep" Well done the echo for finally providing some factual comment on the disruption that Easyjet/the airport are causing in this area. Those who do not live under the flight path, lucky you its not in your back yard. So to this issue of compensation. Its nothing to do with whether someone has lived in the area before or after the airport was built. The relevant point is whether a person lived in the area before the expansion and the planning permission was granted. So if you are lucky enough not to live under the flight path and you do not get woken by a sound similar to construction workers 3 times every day before 7 am well done, if you do then you should have right to complain and also be able to claim compensation for the nuisance that is being caused by the airport. As for Stephen Aylen, independent Cllr on the committee looking into airport noise why is he on this committee?? he notes" none of my residents are against the airport" knock on my door at election time and i will tell you i am and i know many others who also oppose the exapnsion! when and if values are reduced due to expansion will this cllr change his tune when his constituents start complaining about declining values. I really hope that house values are not reduced due to the airport but if they are people have the right to expect compensation. But those people also need to be made aware that if a complaint is made this will need to be disclosed if they want to sell their home. So yet again, those under the flight path are disadvantaged by voicing their opinion, perhaps there are many more people who wish to complain but are simply to afraid to do so. It seems the Council are denying the right for the residents to complain or they are just disregarding the complaints suggesting these planes overhead are from heathrow or stanstead, i wonder why people feel disenfranchised! A lot is being said about the compensation act, whatever that is, but in my view the Council as owners of the airport have a moral duty to listen to those residents who have been disadvantaged. not to be told, its nothing to do with us and its airport issue, no its not its a council issue, permission was granted by the Council as owners so why don't they consider the implications to all of those disadvantaged, after all its well documented that they say that most residents are benefiting from the expansion, those who are not should also be considered, its their moral duty to listen and not to fob us off. The Council are benefiting finacially from the expansion, those who are disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the expansion they just want the right to be compensated , that is fair and just...... sensiblelos

6:58pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jayman says...

southendshrimper wrote:
So here we go, the muppets band waggon has started. Any one will jump on the band waggon where there is a "chance" they can get some money. Just think they lose & then who will they blame SBC? Stobart? the Judge? or will they look for the next band waggon.
Wait for them to say my house is worth x now only x. hmm just thinking if there house price is up can Stobart sue for the diffrance?

So jayman you trying to sue? I'll ask again What would you do if someone in your family got a job at the airport? disown them, want the airport to close & there for lose there job or be happy that they have a job.

Bet you still dont answer,
of course I will honour you with a answer.

i would never disown someone dear to me... What are you accusing me of, being a Tory?

im not trying to sue, but good luck to those who are,
[quote][p][bold]southendshrimper[/bold] wrote: So here we go, the muppets band waggon has started. Any one will jump on the band waggon where there is a "chance" they can get some money. Just think they lose & then who will they blame SBC? Stobart? the Judge? or will they look for the next band waggon. Wait for them to say my house is worth x now only x. hmm just thinking if there house price is up can Stobart sue for the diffrance? So jayman you trying to sue? I'll ask again What would you do if someone in your family got a job at the airport? disown them, want the airport to close & there for lose there job or be happy that they have a job. Bet you still dont answer,[/p][/quote]of course I will honour you with a answer. i would never disown someone dear to me... What are you accusing me of, being a Tory? im not trying to sue, but good luck to those who are, jayman

7:00pm Mon 10 Sep 12

1nails says...

All the lawyers are rubbing their hands in anticipation. They will drag this thing out until it dies, but the airport will still be there, and the same people will be moaning about it. Long live ..................
LONDON-SOUTHEND-INTE
RNATIONAL, airport.
All the lawyers are rubbing their hands in anticipation. They will drag this thing out until it dies, but the airport will still be there, and the same people will be moaning about it. Long live .................. LONDON-SOUTHEND-INTE RNATIONAL, airport. 1nails

7:00pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

aduksquack wrote:
An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?
Are you blind...

Max Impact says...
5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12

As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal.

Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins!
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?[/p][/quote]Are you blind... Max Impact says... 5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12 As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal. Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins! Max Impact

7:12pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Muttles says...

If you buy a property close by an airport you can't expect much more than aircraft noise when planes take off and land. Even before the advent of the Stobart takeover aircraft were using the airport. If you are not a lover of aircraft or noise move house. Stop moaning and get on with life: why should you get compensation I ask myself: the area you chose to purchase a house and reside was entirely your decision with full knowledge of the location of the airport. Stop bleating and get off the bandwagon!!
If you buy a property close by an airport you can't expect much more than aircraft noise when planes take off and land. Even before the advent of the Stobart takeover aircraft were using the airport. If you are not a lover of aircraft or noise move house. Stop moaning and get on with life: why should you get compensation I ask myself: the area you chose to purchase a house and reside was entirely your decision with full knowledge of the location of the airport. Stop bleating and get off the bandwagon!! Muttles

7:17pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jayman says...

Muttles wrote:
If you buy a property close by an airport you can't expect much more than aircraft noise when planes take off and land. Even before the advent of the Stobart takeover aircraft were using the airport. If you are not a lover of aircraft or noise move house. Stop moaning and get on with life: why should you get compensation I ask myself: the area you chose to purchase a house and reside was entirely your decision with full knowledge of the location of the airport. Stop bleating and get off the bandwagon!!
i don't think mild insults are going to work this time... quickly!! write someone a very, very stern letter, before its to late. lol
[quote][p][bold]Muttles[/bold] wrote: If you buy a property close by an airport you can't expect much more than aircraft noise when planes take off and land. Even before the advent of the Stobart takeover aircraft were using the airport. If you are not a lover of aircraft or noise move house. Stop moaning and get on with life: why should you get compensation I ask myself: the area you chose to purchase a house and reside was entirely your decision with full knowledge of the location of the airport. Stop bleating and get off the bandwagon!![/p][/quote]i don't think mild insults are going to work this time... quickly!! write someone a very, very stern letter, before its to late. lol jayman

7:23pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Diannah says...

Every person I have spoken to re the compensation claims are only going to claim so as not to the the only one in the street not to get any money.

Sure as eggs are eggs this money (if claimed) will not go towards triple glazing or selling their property. In fact, I would bet that the majority of it would be spent on a foreign holiday.

Maybe Easyjet should invest in a couple of BAC 1-11's just to remind people of the sound of the 80's when Southend airport was bustling. That sound lasted much longer than 30 seconds and I lived at the end of the runway then.
Every person I have spoken to re the compensation claims are only going to claim so as not to the the only one in the street not to get any money. Sure as eggs are eggs this money (if claimed) will not go towards triple glazing or selling their property. In fact, I would bet that the majority of it would be spent on a foreign holiday. Maybe Easyjet should invest in a couple of BAC 1-11's just to remind people of the sound of the 80's when Southend airport was bustling. That sound lasted much longer than 30 seconds and I lived at the end of the runway then. Diannah

7:30pm Mon 10 Sep 12

balexan1 says...

Max Impact wrote:
aduksquack wrote:
An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?
Are you blind...

Max Impact says...
5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12

As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal.

Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins!
Sure you do, we're all a great success and own many properties all over the world.

Nobody makes up stories about themselves on the internet...hahaha

Anyway, if you are not affected by the airport, don't comment on these articles. I would hate to live under a flight path, modern jets or not, it is noisy, polluting and generally unpleasant.

If their houses have been devalued, then they need to be compensated, end of.

I see empathy is as dead as ever!
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?[/p][/quote]Are you blind... Max Impact says... 5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12 As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal. Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins![/p][/quote]Sure you do, we're all a great success and own many properties all over the world. Nobody makes up stories about themselves on the internet...hahaha Anyway, if you are not affected by the airport, don't comment on these articles. I would hate to live under a flight path, modern jets or not, it is noisy, polluting and generally unpleasant. If their houses have been devalued, then they need to be compensated, end of. I see empathy is as dead as ever! balexan1

7:47pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right?

Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more.

As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win.
Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right? Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more. As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win. Max Impact

7:50pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pipeman says...

aduksquack wrote:
WhateverS wrote:
I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.
Incorrect, commercial jets have flown out of Southend for many many years, servicing and respray and sometimes storage. In the past Viscount and Herald turbo prop aircraft use to fly passengers and freight/newspapers/p
ost 24 hours a day, and believe me they were MUCH noisier than these a319's, I know i use to work on them, strange that very few folk ever complained about that.

And as for Jon fuller speaking at the meeting, yeah I bet he did..! the man that sends letters to people who support the airport threaterning them with a prosecution for murder ?!

And these pepole listern to a man like that...! he is using them like pawns in his 'utter hatred' of the airport that he wants killed off. Get proper independant advice from anyone else but Fuller or SAEN if you really feel you can make a 'genuine' claim.
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhateverS[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last[/p][/quote]The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.[/p][/quote]Incorrect, commercial jets have flown out of Southend for many many years, servicing and respray and sometimes storage. In the past Viscount and Herald turbo prop aircraft use to fly passengers and freight/newspapers/p ost 24 hours a day, and believe me they were MUCH noisier than these a319's, I know i use to work on them, strange that very few folk ever complained about that. And as for Jon fuller speaking at the meeting, yeah I bet he did..! the man that sends letters to people who support the airport threaterning them with a prosecution for murder ?! And these pepole listern to a man like that...! he is using them like pawns in his 'utter hatred' of the airport that he wants killed off. Get proper independant advice from anyone else but Fuller or SAEN if you really feel you can make a 'genuine' claim. pipeman

7:53pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

balexan1 wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
aduksquack wrote: An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?
Are you blind... Max Impact says... 5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12 As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal. Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins!
Sure you do, we're all a great success and own many properties all over the world. Nobody makes up stories about themselves on the internet...hahaha Anyway, if you are not affected by the airport, don't comment on these articles. I would hate to live under a flight path, modern jets or not, it is noisy, polluting and generally unpleasant. If their houses have been devalued, then they need to be compensated, end of. I see empathy is as dead as ever!
I live on Mendip Crescent, look at it on any Southend map and come back and tell the readers if it is close to the flight path.

The airport was there before I was born I brought the house knowing the airport was there and that it could expand unlike the stupids.

Why should I have empathy for anyone who buys a house near an airport, near or under the flight path and then moan about it. It would be like buying a house next door to a football stadium and then moaning about the fans chanting.
[quote][p][bold]balexan1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: An airport story that has got to twelve posts without the appearance of Holdcroft's spin doctor - Max Impact? What's going on?[/p][/quote]Are you blind... Max Impact says... 5:49pm Mon 10 Sep 12 As for calling me Holdcrofts spin doctor, shows how stuipd you are, I DIVE for a living earn more than Camron and own a number of houses across Southend, they are all rented out, I could be in for a windfall I was to slap in a demmand but I'm not going too because I knew the airport was there, the noise is minimal. Check out tonight Echo letters page one moaning mandy states flight are every 15mins![/p][/quote]Sure you do, we're all a great success and own many properties all over the world. Nobody makes up stories about themselves on the internet...hahaha Anyway, if you are not affected by the airport, don't comment on these articles. I would hate to live under a flight path, modern jets or not, it is noisy, polluting and generally unpleasant. If their houses have been devalued, then they need to be compensated, end of. I see empathy is as dead as ever![/p][/quote]I live on Mendip Crescent, look at it on any Southend map and come back and tell the readers if it is close to the flight path. The airport was there before I was born I brought the house knowing the airport was there and that it could expand unlike the stupids. Why should I have empathy for anyone who buys a house near an airport, near or under the flight path and then moan about it. It would be like buying a house next door to a football stadium and then moaning about the fans chanting. Max Impact

8:05pm Mon 10 Sep 12

j-w says...

max, that poster lives in Billericay or somewhere, perhaps he should follow his own advice.
max, that poster lives in Billericay or somewhere, perhaps he should follow his own advice. j-w

8:06pm Mon 10 Sep 12

firedog says...

What if the value of your house has gone up,are you going to pay Stobarts
the extra value.
What if the value of your house has gone up,are you going to pay Stobarts the extra value. firedog

8:12pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Carvair says...

I have a feeling that some of the local residents who have chosen to live just a
couple of miles from the runway centre line of a fully licensed airport are less deafened by noise than dazzled by money.

Your properties have not been devalued, but your cause, if you have one, has been by the siren calls of 'no win no fee' lawyers.

You are being manipulated by a local protest group and the less honourable members of the legal profession.

Wake up.
I have a feeling that some of the local residents who have chosen to live just a couple of miles from the runway centre line of a fully licensed airport are less deafened by noise than dazzled by money. Your properties have not been devalued, but your cause, if you have one, has been by the siren calls of 'no win no fee' lawyers. You are being manipulated by a local protest group and the less honourable members of the legal profession. Wake up. Carvair

8:20pm Mon 10 Sep 12

paintlad3 says...

If you go back to the 60s 70s & 80s, when the airport had piston & propjet, aircraft
using the airport day & night. And a lot of people did not have upc
double glaze windows, there was not all this nonsense about compensation, what a load of rubbish, this is all jumping on the bandwagon, i just wonder how many of these pepole will use the airport sometime in the furture.
If you go back to the 60s 70s & 80s, when the airport had piston & propjet, aircraft using the airport day & night. And a lot of people did not have upc double glaze windows, there was not all this nonsense about compensation, what a load of rubbish, this is all jumping on the bandwagon, i just wonder how many of these pepole will use the airport sometime in the furture. paintlad3

8:25pm Mon 10 Sep 12

j-w says...

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2201113/Ray-Nottage-
Tory-leader-praises-
council-internet-pos
tings-anonymous-user
name.html

Saw this max and thought of you, or rather those that accuse you...
http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2201113/Ray-Nottage- Tory-leader-praises- council-internet-pos tings-anonymous-user name.html Saw this max and thought of you, or rather those that accuse you... j-w

8:53pm Mon 10 Sep 12

thesouthendone says...

What a bunch of moaning wasters, the airport is the best thing to happen to this town in years and years.
Its not like they didn't have ample warning to pack up and clear off (doing us all a favour!)
I hope they don't get a penny.
What a bunch of moaning wasters, the airport is the best thing to happen to this town in years and years. Its not like they didn't have ample warning to pack up and clear off (doing us all a favour!) I hope they don't get a penny. thesouthendone

8:58pm Mon 10 Sep 12

aduksquack says...

Max Impact wrote:
Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right?

Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more.

As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win.
Not at all, people along the whole seafront right up to Shoebury are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise. Yet NO-ONE in these areas was consulted over the airport expansion. I predict a very expensive time coming up for Stobart.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right? Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more. As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win.[/p][/quote]Not at all, people along the whole seafront right up to Shoebury are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise. Yet NO-ONE in these areas was consulted over the airport expansion. I predict a very expensive time coming up for Stobart. aduksquack

9:13pm Mon 10 Sep 12

billericay boy says...

Dream On
Dream On billericay boy

9:24pm Mon 10 Sep 12

siddymint says...

There;s a note with regards Cllr Aylen but I can't see any refernce to him in the artical.
he is the only councillor who has questioned the worth of the committee and what affect it could have he went as far as to say it was just an excuse for coucillors to get tea and bisciuts, I also support him that the residnts are not against the airport as it was there before them but what they are concerned is fair play , Is the airport keeping tpo its agreemnets are some of the moring flights too early is the agreed amount going out in the correct direction.
There;s a note with regards Cllr Aylen but I can't see any refernce to him in the artical. he is the only councillor who has questioned the worth of the committee and what affect it could have he went as far as to say it was just an excuse for coucillors to get tea and bisciuts, I also support him that the residnts are not against the airport as it was there before them but what they are concerned is fair play , Is the airport keeping tpo its agreemnets are some of the moring flights too early is the agreed amount going out in the correct direction. siddymint

9:38pm Mon 10 Sep 12

emcee says...

aduksquack wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right?

Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more.

As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win.
Not at all, people along the whole seafront right up to Shoebury are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise. Yet NO-ONE in these areas was consulted over the airport expansion. I predict a very expensive time coming up for Stobart.
Where on earth did you get your crystal ball from? Madam Jayman?
I got my crystal ball from Madam You're'avin'alaff and I predict very few people will succeed with their claim and if (and it is a huge IF) any claims are successful (although I cannot see how they can be) compensation amounts will be miniscule.
As for your claim that ALL those along the seafront are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise... erm....what? Are you serious? How on earth did you work that one out?
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: Somebody who lives on the SEAFRONT is saying they are going to slap in a claim, is that right? Seems like people are out for a quick buck, as they see the ££ signs, they are even saying that you can claim again and again as many times as you like. Any payment should be ONE off and no going back for more if not people are just going to use it as a cash point and keep slapping in for more and more. As for stating thay want to bankrupt Stobarts it just proves that they are out for themeselves, many of these people forget that with no win no fee, you HAVE to take out an insurance policy with them before they take the case on, then they take a percentage of the win.[/p][/quote]Not at all, people along the whole seafront right up to Shoebury are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise. Yet NO-ONE in these areas was consulted over the airport expansion. I predict a very expensive time coming up for Stobart.[/p][/quote]Where on earth did you get your crystal ball from? Madam Jayman? I got my crystal ball from Madam You're'avin'alaff and I predict very few people will succeed with their claim and if (and it is a huge IF) any claims are successful (although I cannot see how they can be) compensation amounts will be miniscule. As for your claim that ALL those along the seafront are now blighted by low-flying aircraft noise... erm....what? Are you serious? How on earth did you work that one out? emcee

10:15pm Mon 10 Sep 12

pipeman says...

siddymint wrote:
There;s a note with regards Cllr Aylen but I can't see any refernce to him in the artical.
he is the only councillor who has questioned the worth of the committee and what affect it could have he went as far as to say it was just an excuse for coucillors to get tea and bisciuts, I also support him that the residnts are not against the airport as it was there before them but what they are concerned is fair play , Is the airport keeping tpo its agreemnets are some of the moring flights too early is the agreed amount going out in the correct direction.
The airport is within its quota of movements, there are not constant jet aircraft movements at night as some are claiming, there were just two in recent weeks, a very late arrival of a Malaga flight due to technical issues with the aircraft in Malaga, the other was a empty departure after servicing to an airport in Russia, again this is within in the quota. Nor is there a flight every 5/15 minutes during the whole day, you only have to look at the arrival/departure boards for Southend Airport to see.

The issue of departure direction is totally down to wind, if the wind is calm they will take off from runway 06 out to the East.

Some folk write here that the easyjet pilots over powering or flying to low, this is UTTER RUBBISH, they fly the correct flight departure/arrival routes as laid down by the CAA and no highly trained commercial pilot is going to risk his passengers or his or her career by doing anything else, the problem is peoples PERCEPTION, they don't like it "THEREFORE THEY MUST BE BREAKING THE RULES"
[quote][p][bold]siddymint[/bold] wrote: There;s a note with regards Cllr Aylen but I can't see any refernce to him in the artical. he is the only councillor who has questioned the worth of the committee and what affect it could have he went as far as to say it was just an excuse for coucillors to get tea and bisciuts, I also support him that the residnts are not against the airport as it was there before them but what they are concerned is fair play , Is the airport keeping tpo its agreemnets are some of the moring flights too early is the agreed amount going out in the correct direction.[/p][/quote]The airport is within its quota of movements, there are not constant jet aircraft movements at night as some are claiming, there were just two in recent weeks, a very late arrival of a Malaga flight due to technical issues with the aircraft in Malaga, the other was a empty departure after servicing to an airport in Russia, again this is within in the quota. Nor is there a flight every 5/15 minutes during the whole day, you only have to look at the arrival/departure boards for Southend Airport to see. The issue of departure direction is totally down to wind, if the wind is calm they will take off from runway 06 out to the East. Some folk write here that the easyjet pilots over powering or flying to low, this is UTTER RUBBISH, they fly the correct flight departure/arrival routes as laid down by the CAA and no highly trained commercial pilot is going to risk his passengers or his or her career by doing anything else, the problem is peoples PERCEPTION, they don't like it "THEREFORE THEY MUST BE BREAKING THE RULES" pipeman

10:41pm Mon 10 Sep 12

APR says...

Quote ".......Stop Airport Expansion Now member Jon Fuller told the meeting: “The vast majority of people here have probably lost thousands of pounds on the value of their homes......."

The operative word being "Probably".
Is there any evidence to support this statement ?
Quote ".......Stop Airport Expansion Now member Jon Fuller told the meeting: “The vast majority of people here have probably lost thousands of pounds on the value of their homes......." The operative word being "Probably". Is there any evidence to support this statement ? APR

10:52pm Mon 10 Sep 12

jayman says...

aviation policy has become so corrupted and misguided over the years i am surprised we have any aircraft over our skys whatsoever.

one of our greatest aviation engineers may have invented the turbojet engine aircraft but since then we have had a very strange way of accommodating the need for them to land and take off.

a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them.

this may mean several spotters may need to buy a train ticket but it would do away with any disturbance to an individuals right to live without major disruption or disturbance.

don't blame the people for claiming money that the law may see as being rightfully owed due to our 'test case legal system' and the existence of a well established legal precedent.

blame years of bad central policy, corruption, hard lobbying by airport developers, flagrant protectionism of flight operators in there profits and operations and finally. cooked and loaded public consultations...

welcome to UK plc..
aviation policy has become so corrupted and misguided over the years i am surprised we have any aircraft over our skys whatsoever. one of our greatest aviation engineers may have invented the turbojet engine aircraft but since then we have had a very strange way of accommodating the need for them to land and take off. a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them. this may mean several spotters may need to buy a train ticket but it would do away with any disturbance to an individuals right to live without major disruption or disturbance. don't blame the people for claiming money that the law may see as being rightfully owed due to our 'test case legal system' and the existence of a well established legal precedent. blame years of bad central policy, corruption, hard lobbying by airport developers, flagrant protectionism of flight operators in there profits and operations and finally. cooked and loaded public consultations... welcome to UK plc.. jayman

11:29pm Mon 10 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Lets face facts a large number of those claiming will be out to make a few quid even if they are not effected.

How many of those who say they are effected will use the airport for a holiday with the money they might get, one of these protesters actually said that they will keep going back for more money.

Those claiming will have to prove how much loss is due to the airport and them not having a crappy house that needs a lot of work or losses due to the ressession.

There WILL be those that make frivolous claims hopefully they will have to pay Stobarts costs a fine and loose their homes.

The minority always shreek the loudest they are bestowing nothing but shame and embarrassment on Southend giving out a message that we do not want private investment we do not want to create jobs but if you do we will screw you for any penny we can get.

Whilst those that want to see Southend push forward into a more prosperous era creating new opportunities bringing new jobs have to live with the fact that those very people against will moan that nothing is happening in town that Southend is hemorrhaging jobs and the cuts are hitting hard, but will they anti admit it is down to their hatred of change, their hatred of private firms investing in Southend, no they will lay the fault at anyones doors but their own.
Lets face facts a large number of those claiming will be out to make a few quid even if they are not effected. How many of those who say they are effected will use the airport for a holiday with the money they might get, one of these protesters actually said that they will keep going back for more money. Those claiming will have to prove how much loss is due to the airport and them not having a crappy house that needs a lot of work or losses due to the ressession. There WILL be those that make frivolous claims hopefully they will have to pay Stobarts costs a fine and loose their homes. The minority always shreek the loudest they are bestowing nothing but shame and embarrassment on Southend giving out a message that we do not want private investment we do not want to create jobs but if you do we will screw you for any penny we can get. Whilst those that want to see Southend push forward into a more prosperous era creating new opportunities bringing new jobs have to live with the fact that those very people against will moan that nothing is happening in town that Southend is hemorrhaging jobs and the cuts are hitting hard, but will they anti admit it is down to their hatred of change, their hatred of private firms investing in Southend, no they will lay the fault at anyones doors but their own. Max Impact

12:11am Tue 11 Sep 12

Nebs says...

Whether they are entitled or not, why do claims have to be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension rather than when the number of flights has reached the maximum permitted or any other time?
Whether they are entitled or not, why do claims have to be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension rather than when the number of flights has reached the maximum permitted or any other time? Nebs

2:05am Tue 11 Sep 12

monkey69 says...

if you live near an airport its going to get busy one day its simple sell up and fly off somewhere
if you live near an airport its going to get busy one day its simple sell up and fly off somewhere monkey69

5:55am Tue 11 Sep 12

exBillericayDicky says...

I can see the conversation in some of these moaning households:
"Oh the noise, we have a right to com-pen-say-shun!! Ohhh, look, cheap flights from Southend, shall we book?"
I can see the conversation in some of these moaning households: "Oh the noise, we have a right to com-pen-say-shun!! Ohhh, look, cheap flights from Southend, shall we book?" exBillericayDicky

8:15am Tue 11 Sep 12

fletch12107 says...

If the price of your property increases due to having a flourishing airport near it do you have to pay the increase to the airport?
If the price of your property increases due to having a flourishing airport near it do you have to pay the increase to the airport? fletch12107

8:29am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
Lets face facts a large number of those claiming will be out to make a few quid even if they are not effected.

How many of those who say they are effected will use the airport for a holiday with the money they might get, one of these protesters actually said that they will keep going back for more money.

Those claiming will have to prove how much loss is due to the airport and them not having a crappy house that needs a lot of work or losses due to the ressession.

There WILL be those that make frivolous claims hopefully they will have to pay Stobarts costs a fine and loose their homes.

The minority always shreek the loudest they are bestowing nothing but shame and embarrassment on Southend giving out a message that we do not want private investment we do not want to create jobs but if you do we will screw you for any penny we can get.

Whilst those that want to see Southend push forward into a more prosperous era creating new opportunities bringing new jobs have to live with the fact that those very people against will moan that nothing is happening in town that Southend is hemorrhaging jobs and the cuts are hitting hard, but will they anti admit it is down to their hatred of change, their hatred of private firms investing in Southend, no they will lay the fault at anyones doors but their own.
no max..

i think is just down to the fact that you will never see "two minuets walk from the nearest London airport" in a property for sale description.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: Lets face facts a large number of those claiming will be out to make a few quid even if they are not effected. How many of those who say they are effected will use the airport for a holiday with the money they might get, one of these protesters actually said that they will keep going back for more money. Those claiming will have to prove how much loss is due to the airport and them not having a crappy house that needs a lot of work or losses due to the ressession. There WILL be those that make frivolous claims hopefully they will have to pay Stobarts costs a fine and loose their homes. The minority always shreek the loudest they are bestowing nothing but shame and embarrassment on Southend giving out a message that we do not want private investment we do not want to create jobs but if you do we will screw you for any penny we can get. Whilst those that want to see Southend push forward into a more prosperous era creating new opportunities bringing new jobs have to live with the fact that those very people against will moan that nothing is happening in town that Southend is hemorrhaging jobs and the cuts are hitting hard, but will they anti admit it is down to their hatred of change, their hatred of private firms investing in Southend, no they will lay the fault at anyones doors but their own.[/p][/quote]no max.. i think is just down to the fact that you will never see "two minuets walk from the nearest London airport" in a property for sale description. jayman

8:31am Tue 11 Sep 12

Olivia2847 says...

The airport has always been a sleeping giant. It was always going to expand and if you were to buy a house anywhere near the airports flight paths one day the activity would increase! Even in the sixties with the Carvair flights and the early morning postal flights it would have been seen to be an indicator for the future. For once Southend appear to be going in the right direction ....
The airport has always been a sleeping giant. It was always going to expand and if you were to buy a house anywhere near the airports flight paths one day the activity would increase! Even in the sixties with the Carvair flights and the early morning postal flights it would have been seen to be an indicator for the future. For once Southend appear to be going in the right direction .... Olivia2847

8:37am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

Nebs wrote:
Whether they are entitled or not, why do claims have to be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension rather than when the number of flights has reached the maximum permitted or any other time?
Nebs, as with a few other things in this article, I think that is incorrect. Claims cannot be made until March 2013, and can be made for a period of up to six years after this point.
SAEN are now known as STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION and NOISE, curiously another group has been born as mentioned,I understand they are not against the airport but still wish to claim for compensation!
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: Whether they are entitled or not, why do claims have to be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension rather than when the number of flights has reached the maximum permitted or any other time?[/p][/quote]Nebs, as with a few other things in this article, I think that is incorrect. Claims cannot be made until March 2013, and can be made for a period of up to six years after this point. SAEN are now known as STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION and NOISE, curiously another group has been born as mentioned,I understand they are not against the airport but still wish to claim for compensation! j-w

8:41am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
The airport has always been a sleeping giant. It was always going to expand and if you were to buy a house anywhere near the airports flight paths one day the activity would increase! Even in the sixties with the Carvair flights and the early morning postal flights it would have been seen to be an indicator for the future. For once Southend appear to be going in the right direction ....
Olivia, it has only been a sleeping giant for twenty years, before that it was much much noisier and busier than now. Many of these people who are going to try and claim probably managed to get their homes cheaper when they bought because of the airport!
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: The airport has always been a sleeping giant. It was always going to expand and if you were to buy a house anywhere near the airports flight paths one day the activity would increase! Even in the sixties with the Carvair flights and the early morning postal flights it would have been seen to be an indicator for the future. For once Southend appear to be going in the right direction ....[/p][/quote]Olivia, it has only been a sleeping giant for twenty years, before that it was much much noisier and busier than now. Many of these people who are going to try and claim probably managed to get their homes cheaper when they bought because of the airport! j-w

8:48am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

Jayman, wrong again!

lol.

http://www.rightmove
.co.uk/property-for-
sale/property-350494
57.html?premiumA=tru
e
Jayman, wrong again! lol. http://www.rightmove .co.uk/property-for- sale/property-350494 57.html?premiumA=tru e j-w

10:01am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

with easy access to Rochford mainline railway station and London Southend Airport.

nothing about walking distance?.

http://www.rightmove
.co.uk/house-prices/
detailMatching.html?
prop=22124757&sale=2
3522319&country=engl
and

above is some food for thought.

sold in 2011.

4 bed detached house in good condition.

sold for £146,000

in regards to the property you mentioned. It seems its been on the market for a while.

it also had £20,000 knocked off the asking price since 2010.
with easy access to Rochford mainline railway station and London Southend Airport. nothing about walking distance?. http://www.rightmove .co.uk/house-prices/ detailMatching.html? prop=22124757&sale=2 3522319&country=engl and above is some food for thought. sold in 2011. 4 bed detached house in good condition. sold for £146,000 in regards to the property you mentioned. It seems its been on the market for a while. it also had £20,000 knocked off the asking price since 2010. jayman

10:04am Tue 11 Sep 12

Steve H says...

pipeman wrote:
aduksquack wrote:
WhateverS wrote:
I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.
Incorrect, commercial jets have flown out of Southend for many many years, servicing and respray and sometimes storage. In the past Viscount and Herald turbo prop aircraft use to fly passengers and freight/newspapers/p

ost 24 hours a day, and believe me they were MUCH noisier than these a319's, I know i use to work on them, strange that very few folk ever complained about that.

And as for Jon fuller speaking at the meeting, yeah I bet he did..! the man that sends letters to people who support the airport threaterning them with a prosecution for murder ?!

And these pepole listern to a man like that...! he is using them like pawns in his 'utter hatred' of the airport that he wants killed off. Get proper independant advice from anyone else but Fuller or SAEN if you really feel you can make a 'genuine' claim.
How long has the Vulcan been at Southend? Surely that makes more noise than any modern craft!!
[quote][p][bold]pipeman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhateverS[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last[/p][/quote]The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.[/p][/quote]Incorrect, commercial jets have flown out of Southend for many many years, servicing and respray and sometimes storage. In the past Viscount and Herald turbo prop aircraft use to fly passengers and freight/newspapers/p ost 24 hours a day, and believe me they were MUCH noisier than these a319's, I know i use to work on them, strange that very few folk ever complained about that. And as for Jon fuller speaking at the meeting, yeah I bet he did..! the man that sends letters to people who support the airport threaterning them with a prosecution for murder ?! And these pepole listern to a man like that...! he is using them like pawns in his 'utter hatred' of the airport that he wants killed off. Get proper independant advice from anyone else but Fuller or SAEN if you really feel you can make a 'genuine' claim.[/p][/quote]How long has the Vulcan been at Southend? Surely that makes more noise than any modern craft!! Steve H

10:04am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
with easy access to Rochford mainline railway station and London Southend Airport.

nothing about walking distance?.

http://www.rightmove

.co.uk/house-prices/

detailMatching.html?

prop=22124757&sa
le=2
3522319&country=
engl
and

above is some food for thought.

sold in 2011.

4 bed detached house in good condition.

sold for £146,000

in regards to the property you mentioned. It seems its been on the market for a while.

it also had £20,000 knocked off the asking price since 2010.
http://www.zoopla.co
.uk/property-history
/8-warwick-drive/roc
hford/ss4-1hp/133056
92

here is the link...

seems the airport may not be so good for house prices after all.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: with easy access to Rochford mainline railway station and London Southend Airport. nothing about walking distance?. http://www.rightmove .co.uk/house-prices/ detailMatching.html? prop=22124757&sa le=2 3522319&country= engl and above is some food for thought. sold in 2011. 4 bed detached house in good condition. sold for £146,000 in regards to the property you mentioned. It seems its been on the market for a while. it also had £20,000 knocked off the asking price since 2010.[/p][/quote]http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property-history /8-warwick-drive/roc hford/ss4-1hp/133056 92 here is the link... seems the airport may not be so good for house prices after all. jayman

10:11am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at

£250,000

so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price.

http://www.zoopla.co
.uk/property-history
/8-warwick-drive/roc
hford/ss4-1hp/119631
80
oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at £250,000 so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price. http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property-history /8-warwick-drive/roc hford/ss4-1hp/119631 80 jayman

10:15am Tue 11 Sep 12

Nebs says...

jayman wrote:
oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at

£250,000

so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price.

http://www.zoopla.co

.uk/property-history

/8-warwick-drive/roc

hford/ss4-1hp/119631

80
In the current property market, what you ask and what you get are two different things.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at £250,000 so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price. http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property-history /8-warwick-drive/roc hford/ss4-1hp/119631 80[/p][/quote]In the current property market, what you ask and what you get are two different things. Nebs

10:18am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

Nebs wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at

£250,000

so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price.

http://www.zoopla.co


.uk/property-history


/8-warwick-drive/roc


hford/ss4-1hp/119631


80
In the current property market, what you ask and what you get are two different things.
agreed, you tend to get a lot less then you ask for..

so that's a hypothetical £5,000 hit added to other devaluation..
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh and earlier in 2010 the price for the property you mentioned was listed at £250,000 so that's a £30,000 hit for the home owner based on today's listed asking price. http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property-history /8-warwick-drive/roc hford/ss4-1hp/119631 80[/p][/quote]In the current property market, what you ask and what you get are two different things.[/p][/quote]agreed, you tend to get a lot less then you ask for.. so that's a hypothetical £5,000 hit added to other devaluation.. jayman

10:24am Tue 11 Sep 12

RichardAC says...

Given the professionalism of Stobart versus the amateurism of SAEN I think there will only be one outcome.
PS Am I the only one chuckling at the thought that if this ever gets to court of the "3 estate agents" taking the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth.

The airport is a great success story and I cheer every time a plane flies over Leigh.
Given the professionalism of Stobart versus the amateurism of SAEN I think there will only be one outcome. PS Am I the only one chuckling at the thought that if this ever gets to court of the "3 estate agents" taking the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth. The airport is a great success story and I cheer every time a plane flies over Leigh. RichardAC

10:30am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

RichardAC wrote:
Given the professionalism of Stobart versus the amateurism of SAEN I think there will only be one outcome.
PS Am I the only one chuckling at the thought that if this ever gets to court of the "3 estate agents" taking the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth.

The airport is a great success story and I cheer every time a plane flies over Leigh.
i agree, SAEN are not professional, but i believe the counter argument can cope without them.

it always seems like a good idea in principle. Until you find you have lost a ton of cash and the roads and trains are a lot more packed up then before. then the individual realises he or she has been the subject of a Kansas city shuffle..
[quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: Given the professionalism of Stobart versus the amateurism of SAEN I think there will only be one outcome. PS Am I the only one chuckling at the thought that if this ever gets to court of the "3 estate agents" taking the stand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole thruth and nothing but the truth. The airport is a great success story and I cheer every time a plane flies over Leigh.[/p][/quote]i agree, SAEN are not professional, but i believe the counter argument can cope without them. it always seems like a good idea in principle. Until you find you have lost a ton of cash and the roads and trains are a lot more packed up then before. then the individual realises he or she has been the subject of a Kansas city shuffle.. jayman

10:38am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

Jayman, that piddly 4 bed was obviously way over priced (though £146000 does seem a bit low)

as for the house I showed, lets look at the facts. Last sale: £224,999 | Sale date: 1st Jun 2007
So just before the recession and before the planning was approved it sold for just £5000 more than they are asking for now. So despite the airport and recession it hasn't lost too much over 5 years (regardless of what they may have tried to sell it for in the past)
Jayman, that piddly 4 bed was obviously way over priced (though £146000 does seem a bit low) as for the house I showed, lets look at the facts. Last sale: £224,999 | Sale date: 1st Jun 2007 So just before the recession and before the planning was approved it sold for just £5000 more than they are asking for now. So despite the airport and recession it hasn't lost too much over 5 years (regardless of what they may have tried to sell it for in the past) j-w

10:41am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

back to the piddly 4 bed.

http://www.zoopla.co
.uk/property/4-anne-
boleyn-drive/rochfor
d/ss4-1ja/22643152

I know values on websites mean nothing compared to sales but the trend appears up all around the anne boleyn estate.
back to the piddly 4 bed. http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property/4-anne- boleyn-drive/rochfor d/ss4-1ja/22643152 I know values on websites mean nothing compared to sales but the trend appears up all around the anne boleyn estate. j-w

11:14am Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

j-w wrote:
back to the piddly 4 bed.

http://www.zoopla.co

.uk/property/4-anne-

boleyn-drive/rochfor

d/ss4-1ja/22643152

I know values on websites mean nothing compared to sales but the trend appears up all around the anne boleyn estate.
there is a good graph on the page highlighting national averages for properties of that size, houses in ss4 and the property in question.

notice the trend of house price growth is less in that area then the area of ss4 and the national average.
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: back to the piddly 4 bed. http://www.zoopla.co .uk/property/4-anne- boleyn-drive/rochfor d/ss4-1ja/22643152 I know values on websites mean nothing compared to sales but the trend appears up all around the anne boleyn estate.[/p][/quote]there is a good graph on the page highlighting national averages for properties of that size, houses in ss4 and the property in question. notice the trend of house price growth is less in that area then the area of ss4 and the national average. jayman

11:32am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

But its still growth.
But its still growth. j-w

11:36am Tue 11 Sep 12

j-w says...

And apart from the house being worth less it appears to follow the area and national trend exactly.
And apart from the house being worth less it appears to follow the area and national trend exactly. j-w

11:54am Tue 11 Sep 12

lovely says...

As I commented before , I worked at the Airport in the 1980's when it was at one of its busiest it's where I met my boyfriend and I remember standing at a door and watching all the glamarous air hostess and Pilots , I even dated a pilot lol (oh no does this make me bias on my views of the airport ? lol). I'm trying to find out from previous articles in the 1980's if there was any reports of noise, pollution etc, as yet nothing coming up wern't the aircraft alot noisier then ?. Any way, I live in Westcliff and own a business in Leigh on Sea, Eastwood near the A127, 7 days a week!!!, I hear the aircraft take off, sometimes I hear it sometimes I don't but either way its not an ear bursting noise and does not affect my life and yes we sit in the garden at work in the summer. I have used the airport in the last 3 months and can't fault the service. Now everyone has their opinion free speach and all that but as I have said before when you buy a house you pay to have a search and survey done , this would tell you that there is an airport in the area and there have been put in plans for expansion, the airport had put planning permission. Its done now you won't close it so the only option the protesters have now is to ask for compensation. Would compensation claim only be valid if you are currently living in the area, if you move I beleive that you would lose your claim ? So you have to stay in the area putting up with the noise for all that time and still not have an out come because YOU WILL LOSE, just save us all the comments on here and just pack up an move have you thought that this could roll on for 5 years or more , 5 years of hell and noise , oh dear !, One other thing as the airport is now up and running , would the houses close to the airport not find prices would increase ? Lastly maybe they and their families have sneakily used the airport, how many people left in the meeting would that leave to legitimate and morally make a claim would that make it im guessing about 20 .
As I commented before , I worked at the Airport in the 1980's when it was at one of its busiest it's where I met my boyfriend and I remember standing at a door and watching all the glamarous air hostess and Pilots , I even dated a pilot lol (oh no does this make me bias on my views of the airport ? lol). I'm trying to find out from previous articles in the 1980's if there was any reports of noise, pollution etc, as yet nothing coming up wern't the aircraft alot noisier then ?. Any way, I live in Westcliff and own a business in Leigh on Sea, Eastwood near the A127, 7 days a week!!!, I hear the aircraft take off, sometimes I hear it sometimes I don't but either way its not an ear bursting noise and does not affect my life and yes we sit in the garden at work in the summer. I have used the airport in the last 3 months and can't fault the service. Now everyone has their opinion free speach and all that but as I have said before when you buy a house you pay to have a search and survey done , this would tell you that there is an airport in the area and there have been put in plans for expansion, the airport had put planning permission. Its done now you won't close it so the only option the protesters have now is to ask for compensation. Would compensation claim only be valid if you are currently living in the area, if you move I beleive that you would lose your claim ? So you have to stay in the area putting up with the noise for all that time and still not have an out come because YOU WILL LOSE, just save us all the comments on here and just pack up an move have you thought that this could roll on for 5 years or more , 5 years of hell and noise , oh dear !, One other thing as the airport is now up and running , would the houses close to the airport not find prices would increase ? Lastly maybe they and their families have sneakily used the airport, how many people left in the meeting would that leave to legitimate and morally make a claim would that make it im guessing about 20 . lovely

12:54pm Tue 11 Sep 12

maxell says...

compensation claims have to have a trigger, if the aircrafts used by LSA made no sound then there would not be a trigger to claim compensation, this rasises some interseting points , firstly you dont have to oppose the airport to cliam compensation it is your right to claim just because its a new development that could effect you property prices, so people who support the airport are also able to claim, but if they dont complain about the trigger, then the airport will claim that you have not complained ;so you you cant be that bothered, maybe people that support the airport, dont mind the property value drop, and wont want any compensation, if there is free money around my bet is they will jump on the band wagon and even though they support the airport will have no option but to complain if they want to ever stand a chance of getting the money that is rightfully theirs,
compensation claims have to have a trigger, if the aircrafts used by LSA made no sound then there would not be a trigger to claim compensation, this rasises some interseting points , firstly you dont have to oppose the airport to cliam compensation it is your right to claim just because its a new development that could effect you property prices, so people who support the airport are also able to claim, but if they dont complain about the trigger, then the airport will claim that you have not complained ;so you you cant be that bothered, maybe people that support the airport, dont mind the property value drop, and wont want any compensation, if there is free money around my bet is they will jump on the band wagon and even though they support the airport will have no option but to complain if they want to ever stand a chance of getting the money that is rightfully theirs, maxell

12:55pm Tue 11 Sep 12

EastStBoy says...

I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise..

..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up.
I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise.. ..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up. EastStBoy

1:05pm Tue 11 Sep 12

RichardAC says...

The residents will have to prove any drop in house prices is down to the airport. This will be very hard to prove. There are so many factors that affect house prices. Moaning neighbours is one. Some might get double glazing but as far as I understand this is if you get noise above a certain decibel for quite a considerable time. As none of the residents seem to have come up with one hard fact as apposed to emotional waffle (e.g lives blighted whilst other residents in a street seem unaffected and claims that flights come over their house every few minutes which is nonsense) I think they are on a sticky wicket. I'd rather be representing Stobarts than the objectors. Bricks without straw comes to mind.
The residents will have to prove any drop in house prices is down to the airport. This will be very hard to prove. There are so many factors that affect house prices. Moaning neighbours is one. Some might get double glazing but as far as I understand this is if you get noise above a certain decibel for quite a considerable time. As none of the residents seem to have come up with one hard fact as apposed to emotional waffle (e.g lives blighted whilst other residents in a street seem unaffected and claims that flights come over their house every few minutes which is nonsense) I think they are on a sticky wicket. I'd rather be representing Stobarts than the objectors. Bricks without straw comes to mind. RichardAC

3:21pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

From the saen website:

"We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered as such and councillors are not aware of the scale of the misery being caused by expanded operations. There is evidence that initial complaints are being recorded as “comments” if people do not answer certain points from the airport.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

Show US this evidence make this evidence public, if it is so strong why not prove it, why hide it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
From saen webshite

London Southend Airport has just changed to an online complaints procedure which now prevents people from copying their complaints to us…We feel that this leaves people in a dangerous situation as you will have no way of knowing how many of your complaints have been logged “if any” and this could effect you compensation claim. ,With this in mind we have lunched our own on line “Complaints Form”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~

Websites are updated and improved all the time... well apart from yours

I submitted a complaint, Not enough flights!
From the saen website: "We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered as such and councillors are not aware of the scale of the misery being caused by expanded operations. There is evidence that initial complaints are being recorded as “comments” if people do not answer certain points from the airport. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ Show US this evidence make this evidence public, if it is so strong why not prove it, why hide it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ From saen webshite London Southend Airport has just changed to an online complaints procedure which now prevents people from copying their complaints to us…We feel that this leaves people in a dangerous situation as you will have no way of knowing how many of your complaints have been logged “if any” and this could effect you compensation claim. ,With this in mind we have lunched our own on line “Complaints Form” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ Websites are updated and improved all the time... well apart from yours I submitted a complaint, Not enough flights! Max Impact

3:41pm Tue 11 Sep 12

paintlad3 says...

i live under the flight path in westleight have done for years & years
there is less noise now then years ago......get a life!!!
i live under the flight path in westleight have done for years & years there is less noise now then years ago......get a life!!! paintlad3

3:57pm Tue 11 Sep 12

smiffy1980 says...

Oh Please. This is just utter bull................
.....You purchased your houses knowing an airport was near by, so how can you then complain that planes are making noise..........of course planes are going to use the airport, jeeeeeeez.

I purchased my house in Apr 2010 right by snakes lane and yes i can hear the planes.........Does it bother me ? No!!!. Get a life and stop trying to get something for nothing. If its that bad, sell up and move to some remote part of the country and learn your lesson..
Oh Please. This is just utter bull................ .....You purchased your houses knowing an airport was near by, so how can you then complain that planes are making noise..........of course planes are going to use the airport, jeeeeeeez. I purchased my house in Apr 2010 right by snakes lane and yes i can hear the planes.........Does it bother me ? No!!!. Get a life and stop trying to get something for nothing. If its that bad, sell up and move to some remote part of the country and learn your lesson.. smiffy1980

4:16pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Diannah says...

To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them."

Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.
To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them." Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport. Diannah

5:10pm Tue 11 Sep 12

jayman says...

Diannah wrote:
To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them."

Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.
i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend

1961

http://maps.nls.uk/o
s/one-inch-seventh-s
eries/view/?jp2=9157
7137#jp2=91577137&zo
om=5&lat=4136.5&lon=
5112&layers=BT

Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason.

common sense is a rare commodity.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them." Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.[/p][/quote]i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend 1961 http://maps.nls.uk/o s/one-inch-seventh-s eries/view/?jp2=9157 7137#jp2=91577137&zo om=5&lat=4136.5&lon= 5112&layers=BT Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason. common sense is a rare commodity. jayman

5:40pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Maple Brown says...

It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea. Maple Brown

5:43pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Maple Brown says...

jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them."

Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.
i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend

1961

http://maps.nls.uk/o

s/one-inch-seventh-s

eries/view/?jp2=9157

7137#jp2=91577137&am
p;zo
om=5&lat=4136.5&
amp;lon=
5112&layers=BT

Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason.

common sense is a rare commodity.
common sense would mean not expanding a runway when the flight path is directly above two junior schools in the area.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them." Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.[/p][/quote]i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend 1961 http://maps.nls.uk/o s/one-inch-seventh-s eries/view/?jp2=9157 7137#jp2=91577137&am p;zo om=5&lat=4136.5& amp;lon= 5112&layers=BT Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason. common sense is a rare commodity.[/p][/quote]common sense would mean not expanding a runway when the flight path is directly above two junior schools in the area. Maple Brown

5:45pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Maple Brown says...

aduksquack wrote:
WhateverS wrote:
I just don't understand any of this
The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion
Or is compensation what there after
I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last
The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.
the airport flight path is directly above 3 junior schools in the area. Its not just the people with houses suffering but the future generation which have no power to say how they feel. They're education is suffering.
[quote][p][bold]aduksquack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WhateverS[/bold] wrote: I just don't understand any of this The airport was there first and these people bought a house next to the airport didn't they think there might be a problem with noise and expansion Or is compensation what there after I've lived in Leigh all my life (47) under the flight path I'm so pleased that it is doing well and long may it last[/p][/quote]The airport was there first, the extended runway and larger, noisier commercial aircraft were not.[/p][/quote]the airport flight path is directly above 3 junior schools in the area. Its not just the people with houses suffering but the future generation which have no power to say how they feel. They're education is suffering. Maple Brown

6:11pm Tue 11 Sep 12

emcee says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
Times have changed. The airport has, indeed, increased it's buisiness.
I presume your kids have now grown up and the hospital is quite accessible from anywhere in Southend so, if you are not happy where you live, and there is now no real reason for you to live where you do, you could move. Quite a simple solution when you think about it, isn't it?
It seems, in this instance, the expansion was only a bad idea for your own selfish reasons.
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]Times have changed. The airport has, indeed, increased it's buisiness. I presume your kids have now grown up and the hospital is quite accessible from anywhere in Southend so, if you are not happy where you live, and there is now no real reason for you to live where you do, you could move. Quite a simple solution when you think about it, isn't it? It seems, in this instance, the expansion was only a bad idea for your own selfish reasons. emcee

6:13pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
The trees move when planes go over...

i think that is called the wind it blows most of the time and picks up when the nimbys start talking out their bottoms.

OR

Are the trees ducking out the way of the aircraft? if so they have more brains than people who move next to an airport then moan about it!


The VAST majority of the Anti's fly from other airports.
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]The trees move when planes go over... i think that is called the wind it blows most of the time and picks up when the nimbys start talking out their bottoms. OR Are the trees ducking out the way of the aircraft? if so they have more brains than people who move next to an airport then moan about it! The VAST majority of the Anti's fly from other airports. Max Impact

6:43pm Tue 11 Sep 12

sensiblelos says...

Isn't it ironic that those complaining about the moaners are the ones moaning the most even though these people are the ones that benefit the most and are happiest that the airport has expanded. You would have thought that those who are happiest would keep quiet, no its not the case is it.

Empathy, community spirit of course not. Clearly those who have been disadvantaged are not allowed to complain and do not have a right to compensation even though this is a legal right.

Those disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the airport expansion, they are asking to be compensated. I am sure that 99.99% of those claiming compensation would rather they didn't have to endure this long drawn out process and get on with their lives but because these people were ignored and the expanded airport was imposed on them they have to deal with this process.

It seems there are many who post on the evening echo website on all matters all of the time, you would have thought that rather than continually moaning they would perhaps take a flight(from southend obviously) leave the pc/smartphone at home and relax knowing they how good things are in Southend...

perhaps not(thats the realxing part, not the comment on how good things are in southend)........
Isn't it ironic that those complaining about the moaners are the ones moaning the most even though these people are the ones that benefit the most and are happiest that the airport has expanded. You would have thought that those who are happiest would keep quiet, no its not the case is it. Empathy, community spirit of course not. Clearly those who have been disadvantaged are not allowed to complain and do not have a right to compensation even though this is a legal right. Those disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the airport expansion, they are asking to be compensated. I am sure that 99.99% of those claiming compensation would rather they didn't have to endure this long drawn out process and get on with their lives but because these people were ignored and the expanded airport was imposed on them they have to deal with this process. It seems there are many who post on the evening echo website on all matters all of the time, you would have thought that rather than continually moaning they would perhaps take a flight(from southend obviously) leave the pc/smartphone at home and relax knowing they how good things are in Southend... perhaps not(thats the realxing part, not the comment on how good things are in southend)........ sensiblelos

6:48pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Maple Brown & Jayman are the same poster.
Maple Brown & Jayman are the same poster. Max Impact

6:51pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Diannah says...

jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them."

Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.
i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend

1961

http://maps.nls.uk/o

s/one-inch-seventh-s

eries/view/?jp2=9157

7137#jp2=91577137&am
p;zo
om=5&lat=4136.5&
amp;lon=
5112&layers=BT

Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason.

common sense is a rare commodity.
Please don't demean yourself. I'm sure you do have common sense. Let's just say you are being a bit irrational on this subject.

However, back to the airport; Just as an example re my previous post, the Somerset estate was built in the 1950's some 40 years after Southend airport was built.

Southend airport has never been obsolete. Don't know where you dreamed that idea up from.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them." Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.[/p][/quote]i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend 1961 http://maps.nls.uk/o s/one-inch-seventh-s eries/view/?jp2=9157 7137#jp2=91577137&am p;zo om=5&lat=4136.5& amp;lon= 5112&layers=BT Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason. common sense is a rare commodity.[/p][/quote]Please don't demean yourself. I'm sure you do have common sense. Let's just say you are being a bit irrational on this subject. However, back to the airport; Just as an example re my previous post, the Somerset estate was built in the 1950's some 40 years after Southend airport was built. Southend airport has never been obsolete. Don't know where you dreamed that idea up from. Diannah

6:56pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Isn't it ironic that those complaining about the moaners are the ones moaning the most even though these people are the ones that benefit the most and are happiest that the airport has expanded. You would have thought that those who are happiest would keep quiet, no its not the case is it. Empathy, community spirit of course not. Clearly those who have been disadvantaged are not allowed to complain and do not have a right to compensation even though this is a legal right. Those disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the airport expansion, they are asking to be compensated. I am sure that 99.99% of those claiming compensation would rather they didn't have to endure this long drawn out process and get on with their lives but because these people were ignored and the expanded airport was imposed on them they have to deal with this process. It seems there are many who post on the evening echo website on all matters all of the time, you would have thought that rather than continually moaning they would perhaps take a flight(from southend obviously) leave the pc/smartphone at home and relax knowing they how good things are in Southend... perhaps not(thats the realxing part, not the comment on how good things are in southend)........
Can't leave my phone at home as I am on call 24/7/365 now that I have moved to the new operating schedule.

Finally back to work on Monday, with a trip to France for two days before paperwork back in London, weekend back on stand down before back full time the following Monday.

The reason the Anti-anti's are moaning is because of some of the attitude towards this news story its a case of give me give me give me.

Remember a while back in the Echo and OAP couple were asked about the airport expantion he said he had not noticed and the noise did not bother him but the second compo was mentioned he said he would ask for some...

How many people will slap in a dmaned just because there is the chance of some cash, sadly a lot of the people who are not botherd will.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: Isn't it ironic that those complaining about the moaners are the ones moaning the most even though these people are the ones that benefit the most and are happiest that the airport has expanded. You would have thought that those who are happiest would keep quiet, no its not the case is it. Empathy, community spirit of course not. Clearly those who have been disadvantaged are not allowed to complain and do not have a right to compensation even though this is a legal right. Those disadvantaged are not asking to benefit from the airport expansion, they are asking to be compensated. I am sure that 99.99% of those claiming compensation would rather they didn't have to endure this long drawn out process and get on with their lives but because these people were ignored and the expanded airport was imposed on them they have to deal with this process. It seems there are many who post on the evening echo website on all matters all of the time, you would have thought that rather than continually moaning they would perhaps take a flight(from southend obviously) leave the pc/smartphone at home and relax knowing they how good things are in Southend... perhaps not(thats the realxing part, not the comment on how good things are in southend)........[/p][/quote]Can't leave my phone at home as I am on call 24/7/365 now that I have moved to the new operating schedule. Finally back to work on Monday, with a trip to France for two days before paperwork back in London, weekend back on stand down before back full time the following Monday. The reason the Anti-anti's are moaning is because of some of the attitude towards this news story its a case of give me give me give me. Remember a while back in the Echo and OAP couple were asked about the airport expantion he said he had not noticed and the noise did not bother him but the second compo was mentioned he said he would ask for some... How many people will slap in a dmaned just because there is the chance of some cash, sadly a lot of the people who are not botherd will. Max Impact

7:18pm Tue 11 Sep 12

lovely says...

Max impact... your comment about saen made me laugh just a thought how about all the"moaners" (thats us according to Sensiblelos)submitte
d our support for the airport , that would be more than the protesters so case closed.

Sensiblelos.... You point out that I am one of the moaners but I did say everyone has free speach, and by the way I have flown a couple of times from Southend since May.

Aduksquack....The runway has not been extended by much commercial aircraft have always flown from southend, alot of the old aircraft were alot noisier than the current type.

Lastly as I said in a previous post all of you who are claiming compensation can you 100% say that you or any of your family have not and will not be flying from Southend Airport, If you had a chance of flying from Southend cheaper than at say Gatwick or Stansed you really would turn it down ?
Max impact... your comment about saen made me laugh just a thought how about all the"moaners" (thats us according to Sensiblelos)submitte d our support for the airport , that would be more than the protesters so case closed. Sensiblelos.... You point out that I am one of the moaners but I did say everyone has free speach, and by the way I have flown a couple of times from Southend since May. Aduksquack....The runway has not been extended by much commercial aircraft have always flown from southend, alot of the old aircraft were alot noisier than the current type. Lastly as I said in a previous post all of you who are claiming compensation can you 100% say that you or any of your family have not and will not be flying from Southend Airport, If you had a chance of flying from Southend cheaper than at say Gatwick or Stansed you really would turn it down ? lovely

7:22pm Tue 11 Sep 12

lovely says...

Maple Brown are you the tree that keeps moving out of the way of the aeroplane ? Seriously though does the plane fly so low over the trees that they move, Maybe Mr wind should reply to your comment as well.
Maple Brown are you the tree that keeps moving out of the way of the aeroplane ? Seriously though does the plane fly so low over the trees that they move, Maybe Mr wind should reply to your comment as well. lovely

7:37pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Steve H says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
The Vulcan has been based at Southend for years and has, on a regular basis done full throttle runs along the runway, I'm sure that made more than the trees move.

You have always lived under the flight path, you chose to live there, grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]The Vulcan has been based at Southend for years and has, on a regular basis done full throttle runs along the runway, I'm sure that made more than the trees move. You have always lived under the flight path, you chose to live there, grow up. Steve H

8:23pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Diannah wrote:
jayman wrote:
Diannah wrote:
To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them."

Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.
i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend

1961

http://maps.nls.uk/o


s/one-inch-seventh-s


eries/view/?jp2=9157


7137#jp2=91577137&am
p;am
p;zo
om=5&lat=4136.5&
amp;
amp;lon=
5112&layers=BT

Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason.

common sense is a rare commodity.
Please don't demean yourself. I'm sure you do have common sense. Let's just say you are being a bit irrational on this subject.

However, back to the airport; Just as an example re my previous post, the Somerset estate was built in the 1950's some 40 years after Southend airport was built.

Southend airport has never been obsolete. Don't know where you dreamed that idea up from.
Jayman or Maple Brown as his new posting name is known,loves to post non-facts galore about the airport.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: To quote Jayman ... "a sensible approach in policy would be to have major airports as far away from areas of mass population as practical and to construct fast rail and road networks to service them." Jayman, Southend Airport was built away from mass population. Mass population subsequently decided to build near the airport.[/p][/quote]i think you will see the sprawl of development in Southend 1961 http://maps.nls.uk/o s/one-inch-seventh-s eries/view/?jp2=9157 7137#jp2=91577137&am p;am p;zo om=5&lat=4136.5& amp; amp;lon= 5112&layers=BT Southend airport became obsolete for a good and forgotten reason. common sense is a rare commodity.[/p][/quote]Please don't demean yourself. I'm sure you do have common sense. Let's just say you are being a bit irrational on this subject. However, back to the airport; Just as an example re my previous post, the Somerset estate was built in the 1950's some 40 years after Southend airport was built. Southend airport has never been obsolete. Don't know where you dreamed that idea up from.[/p][/quote]Jayman or Maple Brown as his new posting name is known,loves to post non-facts galore about the airport. Max Impact

9:13pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Old Boy says...

I look at how many people were at that meeting. How many of those have travelled out of Southend airport.? A few I suppose. I wonder if they enjoyed that short trip home and not having to come from Gatwick, Stansted or further.
I look at how many people were at that meeting. How many of those have travelled out of Southend airport.? A few I suppose. I wonder if they enjoyed that short trip home and not having to come from Gatwick, Stansted or further. Old Boy

9:17pm Tue 11 Sep 12

maxell says...

EastStBoy wrote:
I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise..

..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up.
No you could not be more wrong the good news for claiments is that everytime the airport does somthing that could impact on house prices they can submitt a further claim, the only way the airport can get out of this one is that the claiment sings the document as full and final settlement and the specialists are going to make sure that does not happen, oh dear it lookes like the airport better start saving 40 50 mill could be a half way point I wonder why they have not told anybody that they could claim and to make it worst even the councils have tried to mug you over , and who are going to be the fools in the street who dont benifit, are you going to be the house in the middle of two that did not claim, the compensation bill is likeley to be more than the airports worth.
[quote][p][bold]EastStBoy[/bold] wrote: I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise.. ..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up.[/p][/quote]No you could not be more wrong the good news for claiments is that everytime the airport does somthing that could impact on house prices they can submitt a further claim, the only way the airport can get out of this one is that the claiment sings the document as full and final settlement and the specialists are going to make sure that does not happen, oh dear it lookes like the airport better start saving 40 50 mill could be a half way point I wonder why they have not told anybody that they could claim and to make it worst even the councils have tried to mug you over , and who are going to be the fools in the street who dont benifit, are you going to be the house in the middle of two that did not claim, the compensation bill is likeley to be more than the airports worth. maxell

9:28pm Tue 11 Sep 12

supershrimper says...

Here's - if you don't like airport noise, then don't buy a house right next to one!

Yes, there may not have been as many flights when they bought the house, but that is like living in a flat above a shop and complaining it is getting more customers.

It is stupid to claim compensation from a business which has been there for much longer than most of the houses involved.
Here's - if you don't like airport noise, then don't buy a house right next to one! Yes, there may not have been as many flights when they bought the house, but that is like living in a flat above a shop and complaining it is getting more customers. It is stupid to claim compensation from a business which has been there for much longer than most of the houses involved. supershrimper

11:11pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

maxell wrote:
EastStBoy wrote:
I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise..

..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up.
No you could not be more wrong the good news for claiments is that everytime the airport does somthing that could impact on house prices they can submitt a further claim, the only way the airport can get out of this one is that the claiment sings the document as full and final settlement and the specialists are going to make sure that does not happen, oh dear it lookes like the airport better start saving 40 50 mill could be a half way point I wonder why they have not told anybody that they could claim and to make it worst even the councils have tried to mug you over , and who are going to be the fools in the street who dont benifit, are you going to be the house in the middle of two that did not claim, the compensation bill is likeley to be more than the airports worth.
That one post is evidence enough that the protesters have been lying all along about not wanting to close the airport down, one of the saen spokespeople (other being jayman or his new name of maple Brown) have gone and exposed their true goal.


Well if the dregs of Southend, Rochord & Leigh are so self-centred that they want to destroy Southend’s largest employment base and wreck the chance of attracting more private investment to Southend than lets hope they do not start moaning when there is no further investment or job creation in Southend.


These people are just out for themselves and to hell with the rest.
What they might not have realised in their greed is that, yes they could go back but…


Any future claims will go on the last valuation so for instance, if their rat infested pile was worth say £200,000 in 2012 valuation today £175,000 they would NOT get the whole £25,000 as it would need to be worked out just what if any depreciation was accredited to the airport let us say £10,000, if in a few years they have spent it all on booze, fags and holidays and want to top up their greed fund, the new valuation would go on the £175,000 and NOT the 2010 valuation.
Saen’s true face exposed by maxell so jobs or a quick buck


If you really want to know what a certain person is like this makes interesting reading:


http://www.saen.org.
uk/tag/jon-fuller/
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EastStBoy[/bold] wrote: I want to know if those residents who are paid compensation will have to pay it back once their house prices rise.. ..because once the second terminal goes up and services expand house prices WILL go up.[/p][/quote]No you could not be more wrong the good news for claiments is that everytime the airport does somthing that could impact on house prices they can submitt a further claim, the only way the airport can get out of this one is that the claiment sings the document as full and final settlement and the specialists are going to make sure that does not happen, oh dear it lookes like the airport better start saving 40 50 mill could be a half way point I wonder why they have not told anybody that they could claim and to make it worst even the councils have tried to mug you over , and who are going to be the fools in the street who dont benifit, are you going to be the house in the middle of two that did not claim, the compensation bill is likeley to be more than the airports worth.[/p][/quote]That one post is evidence enough that the protesters have been lying all along about not wanting to close the airport down, one of the saen spokespeople (other being jayman or his new name of maple Brown) have gone and exposed their true goal. Well if the dregs of Southend, Rochord & Leigh are so self-centred that they want to destroy Southend’s largest employment base and wreck the chance of attracting more private investment to Southend than lets hope they do not start moaning when there is no further investment or job creation in Southend. These people are just out for themselves and to hell with the rest. What they might not have realised in their greed is that, yes they could go back but… Any future claims will go on the last valuation so for instance, if their rat infested pile was worth say £200,000 in 2012 valuation today £175,000 they would NOT get the whole £25,000 as it would need to be worked out just what if any depreciation was accredited to the airport let us say £10,000, if in a few years they have spent it all on booze, fags and holidays and want to top up their greed fund, the new valuation would go on the £175,000 and NOT the 2010 valuation. Saen’s true face exposed by maxell so jobs or a quick buck If you really want to know what a certain person is like this makes interesting reading: http://www.saen.org. uk/tag/jon-fuller/ Max Impact

8:33am Wed 12 Sep 12

j-w says...

Max, just read the letters, that is disgraceful. what a vile man.
Max, just read the letters, that is disgraceful. what a vile man. j-w

8:55am Wed 12 Sep 12

Sir Henry Rawlinson says...

SAEN have just shot themselves in the foot by publicly associating with that man. His comments are, at best, dangerous and possibly actioable which would put SAEN in the frame having given him the platform. I would strongly urge them to disassociate themselves from Mr Fuller. I would also be interested in Jayman's take on this purely as a matter of interest.
SAEN have just shot themselves in the foot by publicly associating with that man. His comments are, at best, dangerous and possibly actioable which would put SAEN in the frame having given him the platform. I would strongly urge them to disassociate themselves from Mr Fuller. I would also be interested in Jayman's take on this purely as a matter of interest. Sir Henry Rawlinson

9:03am Wed 12 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Anyone backing saen is backing this man.

What happend to Kitti Thehobold who was with saen?
Anyone backing saen is backing this man. What happend to Kitti Thehobold who was with saen? Max Impact

9:14am Wed 12 Sep 12

Sir Henry Rawlinson says...

Max

Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man.
Max Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man. Sir Henry Rawlinson

9:28am Wed 12 Sep 12

openspace says...

The runway and airport buidlings have certainly , ( with little effect on most), expanded but the number of flights has only returned to the situation we had in the 60's, and the planes were far lower and noisier then. So, not really an expansion, but a return to the days of success. Any solicitor worth the money they charge could have forseen a revival of the airport at some point when advising on house purchase, so, if you cannot stand any noise fom planes, perhaps they are the people you should sue.
I bought a house in a major road some years ago and the amount of traffic has increased considerably, something I expected, so no point in moaning.
To all those who are trying to make money out of the expansion , I would only say, I really do hope you fail, progress sometimes causes problems for all, live with it or move. Greed and the chance of easy( hopefully not ),money seems to be a modern disease.( House prices will not fall because of the airport, something I am sure will prove correct ).
The runway and airport buidlings have certainly , ( with little effect on most), expanded but the number of flights has only returned to the situation we had in the 60's, and the planes were far lower and noisier then. So, not really an expansion, but a return to the days of success. Any solicitor worth the money they charge could have forseen a revival of the airport at some point when advising on house purchase, so, if you cannot stand any noise fom planes, perhaps they are the people you should sue. I bought a house in a major road some years ago and the amount of traffic has increased considerably, something I expected, so no point in moaning. To all those who are trying to make money out of the expansion , I would only say, I really do hope you fail, progress sometimes causes problems for all, live with it or move. Greed and the chance of easy( hopefully not ),money seems to be a modern disease.( House prices will not fall because of the airport, something I am sure will prove correct ). openspace

9:45am Wed 12 Sep 12

RogerChasewood says...

Old Boy wrote:
I look at how many people were at that meeting. How many of those have travelled out of Southend airport.? A few I suppose. I wonder if they enjoyed that short trip home and not having to come from Gatwick, Stansted or further.
good point. yes bet they were quite happy to use it then when it suits them.

maybe ban anyone claiming compensation from future use of airport?

I go motor racing up at mildenhall near mildenhall airbase and a couple tried to get the track shut down for noise levels even though the track had been going on for years before they arrived. The court told couple basically tough luck they shouldnt have considered that before they moved there and made them repay all courts costs and compensation to the track itself. Unfortunately these days we have too many dregs on society wanting compensation. Maybe if they had decent jobs they wouldnt need any extra money
[quote][p][bold]Old Boy[/bold] wrote: I look at how many people were at that meeting. How many of those have travelled out of Southend airport.? A few I suppose. I wonder if they enjoyed that short trip home and not having to come from Gatwick, Stansted or further.[/p][/quote]good point. yes bet they were quite happy to use it then when it suits them. maybe ban anyone claiming compensation from future use of airport? I go motor racing up at mildenhall near mildenhall airbase and a couple tried to get the track shut down for noise levels even though the track had been going on for years before they arrived. The court told couple basically tough luck they shouldnt have considered that before they moved there and made them repay all courts costs and compensation to the track itself. Unfortunately these days we have too many dregs on society wanting compensation. Maybe if they had decent jobs they wouldnt need any extra money RogerChasewood

9:45am Wed 12 Sep 12

RogerChasewood says...

good point. yes bet they were quite happy to use it then when it suits them.

maybe ban anyone claiming compensation from future use of airport?

I go motor racing up at mildenhall near mildenhall airbase and a couple tried to get the track shut down for noise levels even though the track had been going on for years before they arrived. The court told couple basically tough luck they shouldnt have considered that before they moved there and made them repay all courts costs and compensation to the track itself. Unfortunately these days we have too many dregs on society wanting compensation. Maybe if they had decent jobs they wouldnt need any extra money
good point. yes bet they were quite happy to use it then when it suits them. maybe ban anyone claiming compensation from future use of airport? I go motor racing up at mildenhall near mildenhall airbase and a couple tried to get the track shut down for noise levels even though the track had been going on for years before they arrived. The court told couple basically tough luck they shouldnt have considered that before they moved there and made them repay all courts costs and compensation to the track itself. Unfortunately these days we have too many dregs on society wanting compensation. Maybe if they had decent jobs they wouldnt need any extra money RogerChasewood

9:46am Wed 12 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote:
Max

Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man.
Ta, not seen or heard of her for a while, thought she might have stepped down.

I'm sure on the radio their spokesperson said they will bankrupt Stobarts. I think it was on BBC Essex Breakfast on Saturday but don't hold me to that, soon after 8:00am.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Henry Rawlinson[/bold] wrote: Max Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man.[/p][/quote]Ta, not seen or heard of her for a while, thought she might have stepped down. I'm sure on the radio their spokesperson said they will bankrupt Stobarts. I think it was on BBC Essex Breakfast on Saturday but don't hold me to that, soon after 8:00am. Max Impact

9:48am Wed 12 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

j-w wrote:
Max, just read the letters, that is disgraceful. what a vile man.
Wonder if the likes of jayman will agree...
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: Max, just read the letters, that is disgraceful. what a vile man.[/p][/quote]Wonder if the likes of jayman will agree... Max Impact

11:51am Wed 12 Sep 12

pipeman says...

Max Impact wrote:
Anyone backing saen is backing this man.

What happend to Kitti Thehobold who was with saen?
When all this about Stobarts came to light Theobold desribed Stobarts as an 'preposterous' company, she is from the same mold as Fuller, Walker and Whitehead. Them saying they are not anti-airport is laughable, even if none of this happened at the airport they would still have tried to get the place shut down.

I'm glad that link about Fuller's letter was put here, shows you what kind of man he really is, I'll spare readers my personnal thoughts...lol

Btw, I was over the old airport terminal not so long ago and Walker came and stood in the doorway looking like a frightened school boy, when he did, with his little fold up pedal bike he sat looking round whilst doing texts, I would love to know what he had text, bet is was a load of horse manure..!
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: Anyone backing saen is backing this man. What happend to Kitti Thehobold who was with saen?[/p][/quote]When all this about Stobarts came to light Theobold desribed Stobarts as an 'preposterous' company, she is from the same mold as Fuller, Walker and Whitehead. Them saying they are not anti-airport is laughable, even if none of this happened at the airport they would still have tried to get the place shut down. I'm glad that link about Fuller's letter was put here, shows you what kind of man he really is, I'll spare readers my personnal thoughts...lol Btw, I was over the old airport terminal not so long ago and Walker came and stood in the doorway looking like a frightened school boy, when he did, with his little fold up pedal bike he sat looking round whilst doing texts, I would love to know what he had text, bet is was a load of horse manure..! pipeman

12:10pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Diannah says...

I wonder what all the people who would like to see the airport close down have thought about what would happen to the land? Just think how many houses could be built on all those acres!

They would then be complaining that the roads are too busy.
I wonder what all the people who would like to see the airport close down have thought about what would happen to the land? Just think how many houses could be built on all those acres! They would then be complaining that the roads are too busy. Diannah

12:42pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Biker One says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
But you have no problems flying from Gatwick or Stansted and shaking someone elses trees!!
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]But you have no problems flying from Gatwick or Stansted and shaking someone elses trees!! Biker One

12:50pm Wed 12 Sep 12

WRFCTILLIDIE says...

I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning.

It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm.

I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.
I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself. WRFCTILLIDIE

1:18pm Wed 12 Sep 12

pipeman says...

WRFCTILLIDIE wrote:
I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning.

It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm.

I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.
Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case.

The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10.
[quote][p][bold]WRFCTILLIDIE[/bold] wrote: I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.[/p][/quote]Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case. The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10. pipeman

1:36pm Wed 12 Sep 12

j-w says...

Pipeman, a lot of Heathrow bound A380'S around at that time of the morning too.
Pipeman, a lot of Heathrow bound A380'S around at that time of the morning too. j-w

1:45pm Wed 12 Sep 12

WRFCTILLIDIE says...

pipeman wrote:
WRFCTILLIDIE wrote: I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.
Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case. The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10.
Good intel pipeman.. thanks for clearing up!

I've probably been on a few of the planes which take the route over my house so won't be complaining , but...... would prefer for them to fly a little higher so I'm not woken at 5:30am.
[quote][p][bold]pipeman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WRFCTILLIDIE[/bold] wrote: I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.[/p][/quote]Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case. The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10.[/p][/quote]Good intel pipeman.. thanks for clearing up! I've probably been on a few of the planes which take the route over my house so won't be complaining , but...... would prefer for them to fly a little higher so I'm not woken at 5:30am. WRFCTILLIDIE

1:45pm Wed 12 Sep 12

pipeman says...

j-w wrote:
Pipeman, a lot of Heathrow bound A380'S around at that time of the morning too.
Yep J-W there are, btw I wonder if Fuller of SAEN will seek to prosecute every member of staff at Southend Airport for murder, my my what a busy berk he will be.
[quote][p][bold]j-w[/bold] wrote: Pipeman, a lot of Heathrow bound A380'S around at that time of the morning too.[/p][/quote]Yep J-W there are, btw I wonder if Fuller of SAEN will seek to prosecute every member of staff at Southend Airport for murder, my my what a busy berk he will be. pipeman

1:50pm Wed 12 Sep 12

WRFCTILLIDIE says...

WRFCTILLIDIE wrote:
pipeman wrote:
WRFCTILLIDIE wrote: I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.
Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case. The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10.
Good intel pipeman.. thanks for clearing up! I've probably been on a few of the planes which take the route over my house so won't be complaining , but...... would prefer for them to fly a little higher so I'm not woken at 5:30am.
actually Pipeman, do you really think these planes can be heard over Hadleigh? Seems quite a way off:

http://www.californi
aair.co.uk/Routes/UK
/LondonHeathrowEGLL/
STARS/LAMBOURNE.pdf
[quote][p][bold]WRFCTILLIDIE[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pipeman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WRFCTILLIDIE[/bold] wrote: I'm a nuetral on the topic - I like the idea of the airport, and have used it, but live near enough to the flight path to start getting woken every morning. It is just me, or are the flights starting earlier and ending later? I was woken at 5:30am on Tuesday and last night heard a plane around 11pm. I live in Hadleigh, so a fair distance from the airport itself.[/p][/quote]Fist flight leaves at 06:30, not many folk realise that a major airway into London Heathrow passes over the town, from around 05:00 aircraft using the Lambourne arrival route can decend quite low at that time of the morning and folk here the engines power up as they level off, I bet a few think that these aircraft have come out of Southend, or are being told by SAEN that is the case. The last flight from Malaga arrives back here at 23:10.[/p][/quote]Good intel pipeman.. thanks for clearing up! I've probably been on a few of the planes which take the route over my house so won't be complaining , but...... would prefer for them to fly a little higher so I'm not woken at 5:30am.[/p][/quote]actually Pipeman, do you really think these planes can be heard over Hadleigh? Seems quite a way off: http://www.californi aair.co.uk/Routes/UK /LondonHeathrowEGLL/ STARS/LAMBOURNE.pdf WRFCTILLIDIE

2:44pm Wed 12 Sep 12

pipeman says...

thanks for the link WRFC,

That is the center line of the route, it depends on traffic volume and how London atc space out aircraft, traffic can be spread several miles to the south.
thanks for the link WRFC, That is the center line of the route, it depends on traffic volume and how London atc space out aircraft, traffic can be spread several miles to the south. pipeman

2:50pm Wed 12 Sep 12

StuckInTraffic says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
19 years ago when you chose to move next to an airport did it not occur to you that there could be aeroplanes taking off and landing.

You said that the airport was the least of your worries as the proximity to the school and the hospital were important, just because your personal circumstances have now probably changed I don't see how you can start complaining about aeroplane noise.

You either
a, made the decision when you moved in that you were happy to live next to an airport and put up with aeroplane noise, in which case I can't see how you can complain about it.
or b, you just didn't link together the fact there was an airport next to you and hence there might be aeroplanes flying in and out of it creating noise, in which case you only have yourself to blame.
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]19 years ago when you chose to move next to an airport did it not occur to you that there could be aeroplanes taking off and landing. You said that the airport was the least of your worries as the proximity to the school and the hospital were important, just because your personal circumstances have now probably changed I don't see how you can start complaining about aeroplane noise. You either a, made the decision when you moved in that you were happy to live next to an airport and put up with aeroplane noise, in which case I can't see how you can complain about it. or b, you just didn't link together the fact there was an airport next to you and hence there might be aeroplanes flying in and out of it creating noise, in which case you only have yourself to blame. StuckInTraffic

3:37pm Wed 12 Sep 12

emcee says...

I do not see what all the fuss is about.
This is merely a case of a few chancers, jumping on a bandwagon initiated by a few people who cannot bare to be out of the papers and who cannot bare to accept that the airport is here and that their cause was lost. Their efforts are akin to blowing on failing cinders to try and ignite wet wood. They will try anything to try and keep the argument alight.
This story will probably fizzle out into just one or two people being able to claim peanuts, at best.
I do not see what all the fuss is about. This is merely a case of a few chancers, jumping on a bandwagon initiated by a few people who cannot bare to be out of the papers and who cannot bare to accept that the airport is here and that their cause was lost. Their efforts are akin to blowing on failing cinders to try and ignite wet wood. They will try anything to try and keep the argument alight. This story will probably fizzle out into just one or two people being able to claim peanuts, at best. emcee

4:39pm Wed 12 Sep 12

jayman says...

Diannah wrote:
I wonder what all the people who would like to see the airport close down have thought about what would happen to the land? Just think how many houses could be built on all those acres!

They would then be complaining that the roads are too busy.
apparently the airport is green belt......? Southend council is the landowner.
[quote][p][bold]Diannah[/bold] wrote: I wonder what all the people who would like to see the airport close down have thought about what would happen to the land? Just think how many houses could be built on all those acres! They would then be complaining that the roads are too busy.[/p][/quote]apparently the airport is green belt......? Southend council is the landowner. jayman

7:53pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Part of the site is green belt, the land is owned by SBC but is in Rochford.

However it could be re-designated to a brown filed site if it can be proven that the land would be better used for gravel extraction and then a housing estate.



So jayman what is your view on this:

http://www.saen.org.
uk/tag/jon-fuller/
Part of the site is green belt, the land is owned by SBC but is in Rochford. However it could be re-designated to a brown filed site if it can be proven that the land would be better used for gravel extraction and then a housing estate. So jayman what is your view on this: http://www.saen.org. uk/tag/jon-fuller/ Max Impact

9:40pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Techy - SOL says...

There's some very interesting pros & cons on here. The arguments for and against the airport expansion both have foundation, but the right to compensation is flimsy based on the supposed devaluation of properties in the area. ONLY those within a couple of hundred metres of the airport have any right to complain about the increase in aircraft traffic... the rest are just spongers, whingers and 2 faced bigots, who are happy to fly over someone else's back yard.

Looking at the last 50 years of property prices in S.E.Essex, there was an almost constant year on year increase in property prices for the 60s, 70s & 80s, which coincided with the airport's supposed hey-day, complete with all the air and noise polluting aircraft.

Carvair's for instance, used to distort the TV signal of homes all over Canvey in the 60's & 70's as they approached the airport for landing on 06. Then you had the Heralds & the Viscounts with their turbo-prop engines that you could hear for miles. Then in the 80s, you had the BAC1-11s, the Boeing 737-200s and the Caravelles with their shockingly noisy jet engines.

However, in the late 80s, the stock markets (yes, the stock markets) caused a recession the world over, resulting in property values falling and guess what... the airport suffered with the loss of industry & became a virtual graveyard of unwanted aircraft decaying in a corner.

However, aircraft continued to come & go on maintenance runs and not forgetting the flight schools, it continued to tick over despite larger airports in the region like Stansted & Luton being added as London Airports and of course, the development of London City Airport.

I bought my property on Canvey Island during that recession & despite being directly under the flight path for Southend, London City, Stansted & within a few miles of flights converging on Heathrow & Gatwick, my property has more than quadrupled in nearly 20 years.

Granted, I am about 4 miles from the airport as the crow flies... but Southend arrivals and departures fly almost directly over my roof-top morning, noon & evening and have done so for as long as I can remember. I am only a degree or so left of the centre-line for runway 06 & I was fully aware of that fact when I moved in.

Therefore, to finish up here... I feel that any claim for compensation can only be based on entire communities pulling together and making the same claims against Stobart. If Stobart's lawyers are already on the case, they could be within their rights to insist that percentages as high as 90% of an entire community need to claim in order to admit any liability for loss of value to property, and that's before any litigation can take place.

Good luck reaching those numbers!!!
There's some very interesting pros & cons on here. The arguments for and against the airport expansion both have foundation, but the right to compensation is flimsy based on the supposed devaluation of properties in the area. ONLY those within a couple of hundred metres of the airport have any right to complain about the increase in aircraft traffic... the rest are just spongers, whingers and 2 faced bigots, who are happy to fly over someone else's back yard. Looking at the last 50 years of property prices in S.E.Essex, there was an almost constant year on year increase in property prices for the 60s, 70s & 80s, which coincided with the airport's supposed hey-day, complete with all the air and noise polluting aircraft. Carvair's for instance, used to distort the TV signal of homes all over Canvey in the 60's & 70's as they approached the airport for landing on 06. Then you had the Heralds & the Viscounts with their turbo-prop engines that you could hear for miles. Then in the 80s, you had the BAC1-11s, the Boeing 737-200s and the Caravelles with their shockingly noisy jet engines. However, in the late 80s, the stock markets (yes, the stock markets) caused a recession the world over, resulting in property values falling and guess what... the airport suffered with the loss of industry & became a virtual graveyard of unwanted aircraft decaying in a corner. However, aircraft continued to come & go on maintenance runs and not forgetting the flight schools, it continued to tick over despite larger airports in the region like Stansted & Luton being added as London Airports and of course, the development of London City Airport. I bought my property on Canvey Island during that recession & despite being directly under the flight path for Southend, London City, Stansted & within a few miles of flights converging on Heathrow & Gatwick, my property has more than quadrupled in nearly 20 years. Granted, I am about 4 miles from the airport as the crow flies... but Southend arrivals and departures fly almost directly over my roof-top morning, noon & evening and have done so for as long as I can remember. I am only a degree or so left of the centre-line for runway 06 & I was fully aware of that fact when I moved in. Therefore, to finish up here... I feel that any claim for compensation can only be based on entire communities pulling together and making the same claims against Stobart. If Stobart's lawyers are already on the case, they could be within their rights to insist that percentages as high as 90% of an entire community need to claim in order to admit any liability for loss of value to property, and that's before any litigation can take place. Good luck reaching those numbers!!! Techy - SOL

10:09pm Wed 12 Sep 12

BASILBRUSH says...

Max Impact wrote:
Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote:
Max

Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man.
Ta, not seen or heard of her for a while, thought she might have stepped down.

I'm sure on the radio their spokesperson said they will bankrupt Stobarts. I think it was on BBC Essex Breakfast on Saturday but don't hold me to that, soon after 8:00am.
The Spokesman (?) for SAEN is quite clear about his feelings for the future of the Airport on his 'Twitter' page "The cause of misery for tens of thousands of Southend and Rochford residents. Hope they go bust soon. http://twitpic.com/a
fh2v4" .

Yet not anti-southend airport.... mmm

But then SAEN was hi jacked by the serial 'hard core' campaigners a long time ago.
Reading above that people along the Front weren't consulted is Poppycock. The Airport expansion has been the most publicised in the area. You would have to have been living under a rock not to have read about, watched or heard something about it in the past decade. Not to mention the public notices and JAAP consultation.
If i'm correct, outlining permission for the station and new terminal was given in 1998?.... Expansion has hardly come as a shock.... has it?

I hate the compensation culture developing in this country (we all pay in higher premiums or charges as a result). The only winners are the solicitors, and this case Surveyor.

Loss of value banded about by the 'chairman' of SAEN that some properties have lost upto £70k! Really?! ... Prove it... And not from a 'market Appraisal'.
Here's one case. There is a property close to the Airport, the owners made no secret of their objection to the extension from the signage outside (despite choosing to live next to the Airport originally) and have decided to sell up.
It was last sold for £89,200 on 9th Apr 1999. On the market now for £355,000 listed on 8th Aug 2012!!! (info from Zoopla)
That's a potential increase from the purchase price of around 75%!

I'm not suggesting the owners are trying to claim compensation, and they may not achieve this value, but even if they achive 25% less, that still represents a large increase in value of a property on the doorstep to the Airport . All within the same time period that the outlining permission for the terminal (ie planned expansion of commercial activities) was received.

My point is that in an already turbulent national property market, which has seen such huge increases in the past decade, its a bold statement to suggest such losses have occurred, especially when you compare the areas property price trend with the National trend over the past 3 years show very similar appreciation and depreciation.. .... Its not going to be an easy win... Fee or no fee.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Henry Rawlinson[/bold] wrote: Max Sadly, she led the meeting according to the 'transcript'. I always thought she was the acceptable face of SAEN until it was hijacked by others so very disappointing to see her publicly supporting this man.[/p][/quote]Ta, not seen or heard of her for a while, thought she might have stepped down. I'm sure on the radio their spokesperson said they will bankrupt Stobarts. I think it was on BBC Essex Breakfast on Saturday but don't hold me to that, soon after 8:00am.[/p][/quote]The Spokesman (?) for SAEN is quite clear about his feelings for the future of the Airport on his 'Twitter' page "The cause of misery for tens of thousands of Southend and Rochford residents. Hope they go bust soon. http://twitpic.com/a fh2v4" . Yet not anti-southend airport.... mmm But then SAEN was hi jacked by the serial 'hard core' campaigners a long time ago. Reading above that people along the Front weren't consulted is Poppycock. The Airport expansion has been the most publicised in the area. You would have to have been living under a rock not to have read about, watched or heard something about it in the past decade. Not to mention the public notices and JAAP consultation. If i'm correct, outlining permission for the station and new terminal was given in 1998?.... Expansion has hardly come as a shock.... has it? I hate the compensation culture developing in this country (we all pay in higher premiums or charges as a result). The only winners are the solicitors, and this case Surveyor. Loss of value banded about by the 'chairman' of SAEN that some properties have lost upto £70k! Really?! ... Prove it... And not from a 'market Appraisal'. Here's one case. There is a property close to the Airport, the owners made no secret of their objection to the extension from the signage outside (despite choosing to live next to the Airport originally) and have decided to sell up. It was last sold for £89,200 on 9th Apr 1999. On the market now for £355,000 listed on 8th Aug 2012!!! (info from Zoopla) That's a potential increase from the purchase price of around 75%! I'm not suggesting the owners are trying to claim compensation, and they may not achieve this value, but even if they achive 25% less, that still represents a large increase in value of a property on the doorstep to the Airport . All within the same time period that the outlining permission for the terminal (ie planned expansion of commercial activities) was received. My point is that in an already turbulent national property market, which has seen such huge increases in the past decade, its a bold statement to suggest such losses have occurred, especially when you compare the areas property price trend with the National trend over the past 3 years show very similar appreciation and depreciation.. .... Its not going to be an easy win... Fee or no fee. BASILBRUSH

9:50am Thu 13 Sep 12

merlin3977 says...

Wow, Amazing! I mean, why on earth would i live near an airport and then expect them not to expand to cope with the ever increasing demand for flights etc. I know, i think i'll go and move near the sewage works and then demand compensation for the smell........
Wow, Amazing! I mean, why on earth would i live near an airport and then expect them not to expand to cope with the ever increasing demand for flights etc. I know, i think i'll go and move near the sewage works and then demand compensation for the smell........ merlin3977

10:20am Thu 13 Sep 12

pipeman says...

http://twitpic.com/a
fh2v4

'I hope they go bust soon'

SAEN website states 'we are not anti-airport'

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, prove positive what SAEN members ultimate goal has always been.

I know you will read this Walker, lets see you and your silly little group come over to the airport terminal and say that to the workers there, got the guts to do it Walker...??

no...? I didnt think so..!

I have to laugh at that page called 'TWITPIC' right underneath is Walker's mug shot ...LOL
http://twitpic.com/a fh2v4 'I hope they go bust soon' SAEN website states 'we are not anti-airport' There you have it ladies and gentlemen, prove positive what SAEN members ultimate goal has always been. I know you will read this Walker, lets see you and your silly little group come over to the airport terminal and say that to the workers there, got the guts to do it Walker...?? no...? I didnt think so..! I have to laugh at that page called 'TWITPIC' right underneath is Walker's mug shot ...LOL pipeman

11:12am Thu 13 Sep 12

RichardAC says...

I think the protesters might be on a legal sticky wicket. What a shame

http://www.echr.coe.
int/NR/rdonlyres/0C8
18E19-C40B-412E-9856
-44126D49BDE6/0/FICH
ES_Environnement_EN.
pdf
I think the protesters might be on a legal sticky wicket. What a shame http://www.echr.coe. int/NR/rdonlyres/0C8 18E19-C40B-412E-9856 -44126D49BDE6/0/FICH ES_Environnement_EN. pdf RichardAC

12:58pm Thu 13 Sep 12

openspace says...

It would be interesting to see a demographic layout of the areas where those photographed above live. Is it possible that many are moneygrabbers who live well away from the flightpath, I wonder ??.
Bet I'm right though.
Anything to make a few bob out of something.
As mentioned earlier, I really do hope all the claims collapse, ( as I suspect they will), and a loss, not a gain, will result.
It would be interesting to see a demographic layout of the areas where those photographed above live. Is it possible that many are moneygrabbers who live well away from the flightpath, I wonder ??. Bet I'm right though. Anything to make a few bob out of something. As mentioned earlier, I really do hope all the claims collapse, ( as I suspect they will), and a loss, not a gain, will result. openspace

1:18pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Rochford Rob says...

I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier.

The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1.

Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime.

I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.
I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier. The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1. Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime. I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since. Rochford Rob

4:28pm Thu 13 Sep 12

jayman says...

Rochford Rob wrote:
I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier.

The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1.

Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime.

I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.
oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument.

A judge will soon be deciding over this issue.

so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law'

you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style)..

alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag.
[quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier. The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1. Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime. I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.[/p][/quote]oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument. A judge will soon be deciding over this issue. so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law' you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style).. alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag. jayman

4:38pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Old Boy says...

I thought of premise. Buckingham House as it was called now the palace.This was there in 1761, then became a palace in 1837 for the royals.

Was there yesterday, the planes come right over the top on their final run-in. That was built before Heathrow and the present owner moved there in 1952. She knew the airport was in exsistance, I bet she has not complained.
I thought of premise. Buckingham House as it was called now the palace.This was there in 1761, then became a palace in 1837 for the royals. Was there yesterday, the planes come right over the top on their final run-in. That was built before Heathrow and the present owner moved there in 1952. She knew the airport was in exsistance, I bet she has not complained. Old Boy

5:27pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

So jayman what is your view on this:

http://www.saen.org.
uk/tag/jon-fuller/

You seem to want to avoid offending your master.
So jayman what is your view on this: http://www.saen.org. uk/tag/jon-fuller/ You seem to want to avoid offending your master. Max Impact

5:55pm Thu 13 Sep 12

I love Essex says...

Yet again, nasty comments from those who so violently seem to be part of the support expansion group. I have stated time and again that I do not support either side, but to be honest, based purely on comments on here and others, I am wading towards those extremists against, not the extremists for. Do you have nothing better to do all day, as I do right now, than spout your views. When will someone speak for those who are, yes peeved at noise, have been told that airport is worki g to reduce noise etc. why reduce noise of its not there in the first place? Why get on a high horse to defend a business if it has no effect on local residents what so ever?
Yet again, nasty comments from those who so violently seem to be part of the support expansion group. I have stated time and again that I do not support either side, but to be honest, based purely on comments on here and others, I am wading towards those extremists against, not the extremists for. Do you have nothing better to do all day, as I do right now, than spout your views. When will someone speak for those who are, yes peeved at noise, have been told that airport is worki g to reduce noise etc. why reduce noise of its not there in the first place? Why get on a high horse to defend a business if it has no effect on local residents what so ever? I love Essex

6:07pm Thu 13 Sep 12

pipeman says...

jayman wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote:
I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier.

The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1.

Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime.

I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.
oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument.

A judge will soon be deciding over this issue.

so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law'

you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style)..

alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag.
Actually Mr Jay I would imagine the airport staff are more concerned about the daily running of our local airport, you know providing a great service which many thousands of passengers have already used.

I see SAEN are still saying 'a flight every few minutes' and six million passengers a year.

Let them try and bring down Stobarts,
I will just enjoy watching them fail ...again..!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier. The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1. Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime. I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.[/p][/quote]oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument. A judge will soon be deciding over this issue. so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law' you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style).. alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag.[/p][/quote]Actually Mr Jay I would imagine the airport staff are more concerned about the daily running of our local airport, you know providing a great service which many thousands of passengers have already used. I see SAEN are still saying 'a flight every few minutes' and six million passengers a year. Let them try and bring down Stobarts, I will just enjoy watching them fail ...again..! pipeman

6:49pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

I love Essex wrote:
Yet again, nasty comments from those who so violently seem to be part of the support expansion group. I have stated time and again that I do not support either side, but to be honest, based purely on comments on here and others, I am wading towards those extremists against, not the extremists for. Do you have nothing better to do all day, as I do right now, than spout your views. When will someone speak for those who are, yes peeved at noise, have been told that airport is worki g to reduce noise etc. why reduce noise of its not there in the first place? Why get on a high horse to defend a business if it has no effect on local residents what so ever?
Your not botherd about the airport or the noise you do not suppoert the airport or its re-birth but you post on the very story about the airport...

I do not give two hoots about some articles on here so don't bother posting on them but you do post comments on something you have said you don't care about...

As for the extremists remark the pathasist is the one to look out for they will just sit and watch and then choose what everside they think will benefit them financially throwing what morals they had to the wolves, without doubt they are the underbelly of humanity.
[quote][p][bold]I love Essex[/bold] wrote: Yet again, nasty comments from those who so violently seem to be part of the support expansion group. I have stated time and again that I do not support either side, but to be honest, based purely on comments on here and others, I am wading towards those extremists against, not the extremists for. Do you have nothing better to do all day, as I do right now, than spout your views. When will someone speak for those who are, yes peeved at noise, have been told that airport is worki g to reduce noise etc. why reduce noise of its not there in the first place? Why get on a high horse to defend a business if it has no effect on local residents what so ever?[/p][/quote]Your not botherd about the airport or the noise you do not suppoert the airport or its re-birth but you post on the very story about the airport... I do not give two hoots about some articles on here so don't bother posting on them but you do post comments on something you have said you don't care about... As for the extremists remark the pathasist is the one to look out for they will just sit and watch and then choose what everside they think will benefit them financially throwing what morals they had to the wolves, without doubt they are the underbelly of humanity. Max Impact

6:54pm Thu 13 Sep 12

lovely says...

jayman wrote:
Rochford Rob wrote: I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier. The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1. Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime. I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.
oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument. A judge will soon be deciding over this issue. so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law' you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style).. alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag.
Rochford Rob, well said from someone who's point says it all , can I come to one of your BBQ's
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rochford Rob[/bold] wrote: I live closer to the runway than anyone in Southend - it's at the end of my garden (Literally) - 25 yards from the fence. Does it stop me having BBQs? Nope, not a jot. The noise? Minimal, in fact Southend Road is noisier. The jets are the quietest of all the aircraft that use the airport. Planes it seems are like dogs - the smallest make the most noise so the band waggoneers should have been moaning since WW1. Too many nimbys looking out for a fast buck at someone else's expense - what is now becoming a national pastime. I bought my house after the airport was developed. It's gone up in price ever since.[/p][/quote]oh.... the silent majority/loud minority argument. A judge will soon be deciding over this issue. so i suppose in boils down to 'the best presented argument in teat case law' you always know that some airport employees are sweating and pulling at there collars (along with a few council officials who gave stobart assurances that could never be kept) when a load of people come on here saying the same thing (in the same style).. alas. this is not something that can be talked down or insulted away on the web pages of the local rag.[/p][/quote]Rochford Rob, well said from someone who's point says it all , can I come to one of your BBQ's lovely

7:41pm Thu 13 Sep 12

charwen says...

I live under the flight pass hardly hear it and i think it is great to walk to the airport no more parking charges and also rail link next to it and a lovely holiday inn but most of all it has given people employment in Southend and will next year bring in more jobs for us again when TUI join aswell.
I live under the flight pass hardly hear it and i think it is great to walk to the airport no more parking charges and also rail link next to it and a lovely holiday inn but most of all it has given people employment in Southend and will next year bring in more jobs for us again when TUI join aswell. charwen

8:11pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Rochford Rob says...

I don't dispute that a judge may decide on the issue. My point was that of all the posters on here so far, no one, but no one lives as close to the the airport as I do, yet people from miles away claim it is too noisy.

The word 'compensation' probably drives these people. ( I suspect)

I am inundated with 'ambulance chasing, no win no fee' lawyers' letters over this issue.

I complained to SWLTBO about an aircraft making too much noise recently, only to discover it was the wachine machine on a spin cycle.

Honest, I kid you not.

One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. That WAS noisy. All the hairs on the back of my neck went up. It was great. :)

I don't suppose they have anything to do with Stobart though.

Oh, and one other point, my neighbours have lived here for more than thirty years and claim that the airport is now 'much quieter'
I don't dispute that a judge may decide on the issue. My point was that of all the posters on here so far, no one, but no one lives as close to the the airport as I do, yet people from miles away claim it is too noisy. The word 'compensation' probably drives these people. ( I suspect) I am inundated with 'ambulance chasing, no win no fee' lawyers' letters over this issue. I complained to SWLTBO about an aircraft making too much noise recently, only to discover it was the wachine machine on a spin cycle. Honest, I kid you not. One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. That WAS noisy. All the hairs on the back of my neck went up. It was great. :) I don't suppose they have anything to do with Stobart though. Oh, and one other point, my neighbours have lived here for more than thirty years and claim that the airport is now 'much quieter' Rochford Rob

9:22pm Thu 13 Sep 12

DogsMessInLeigh says...

I live under the flight path of those uneasy jets...and only yesturday i noticed some dust on my shed....but i must say they seem to stick to schedule if anyone was thinking about using them from Southend.
I live under the flight path of those uneasy jets...and only yesturday i noticed some dust on my shed....but i must say they seem to stick to schedule if anyone was thinking about using them from Southend. DogsMessInLeigh

10:30pm Thu 13 Sep 12

APR says...

Quote ".....One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. ...."

Afterburners on a Hawk ?

You'd get more noise from Cessna.
Quote ".....One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. ...." Afterburners on a Hawk ? You'd get more noise from Cessna. APR

4:08am Fri 14 Sep 12

ChampKind says...

dh1968 wrote:
It would be interesting to know how many people lived in the area before the airport became operational. As far as i'm aware it became an airfield in WW1,and went on to become an official airport in 1935. In its heyday of the 60's and 70's it was the third largest airport in the UK and still the third largest for passenger numbers by the end of the 70s.
If you don't like aircraft and aircraft noise don't move close to an airport.
And yes flights do come out my house daily !!!!
Wow, you must have a big front door !
[quote][p][bold]dh1968[/bold] wrote: It would be interesting to know how many people lived in the area before the airport became operational. As far as i'm aware it became an airfield in WW1,and went on to become an official airport in 1935. In its heyday of the 60's and 70's it was the third largest airport in the UK and still the third largest for passenger numbers by the end of the 70s. If you don't like aircraft and aircraft noise don't move close to an airport. And yes flights do come out my house daily !!!![/p][/quote]Wow, you must have a big front door ! ChampKind

9:35am Fri 14 Sep 12

r6keith says...

Maple Brown wrote:
It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.
I am very intrigued by your moving tree statement.Would you be as kind as to tell me what road you live in so I can come and experience this phantasmagoria.
[quote][p][bold]Maple Brown[/bold] wrote: It's all very well people saying that we shouldn't have bought a house next to an airport if we didn't want noise but I moved in 19 years ago and the airport was the least of our worries. We moved in to the road next to the airport as it meant we were a close walk to Southend Hospital and to the school we wanted our children to go to. It's all very well that the airport has expanded its runway but when you live under a flight path it gets very wearing on you! Flights come in and out all day and the planes fly so low that the trees in the garden move. When they first started we were being woken up by the planes as the airport was reving the jet engines. The expansion was a bad idea.[/p][/quote]I am very intrigued by your moving tree statement.Would you be as kind as to tell me what road you live in so I can come and experience this phantasmagoria. r6keith

9:45am Fri 14 Sep 12

r6keith says...

openspace wrote:
The runway and airport buidlings have certainly , ( with little effect on most), expanded but the number of flights has only returned to the situation we had in the 60's, and the planes were far lower and noisier then. So, not really an expansion, but a return to the days of success. Any solicitor worth the money they charge could have forseen a revival of the airport at some point when advising on house purchase, so, if you cannot stand any noise fom planes, perhaps they are the people you should sue. I bought a house in a major road some years ago and the amount of traffic has increased considerably, something I expected, so no point in moaning. To all those who are trying to make money out of the expansion , I would only say, I really do hope you fail, progress sometimes causes problems for all, live with it or move. Greed and the chance of easy( hopefully not ),money seems to be a modern disease.( House prices will not fall because of the airport, something I am sure will prove correct ).
I do not know if this is true but I have been told that the houses under the flight path have this information written in their deeds , if this is the case surely this alone would cancel out any noise related claims. As any Lawyer would be able to point out that you purchased the house in full knowledge of the airport and its location.
[quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: The runway and airport buidlings have certainly , ( with little effect on most), expanded but the number of flights has only returned to the situation we had in the 60's, and the planes were far lower and noisier then. So, not really an expansion, but a return to the days of success. Any solicitor worth the money they charge could have forseen a revival of the airport at some point when advising on house purchase, so, if you cannot stand any noise fom planes, perhaps they are the people you should sue. I bought a house in a major road some years ago and the amount of traffic has increased considerably, something I expected, so no point in moaning. To all those who are trying to make money out of the expansion , I would only say, I really do hope you fail, progress sometimes causes problems for all, live with it or move. Greed and the chance of easy( hopefully not ),money seems to be a modern disease.( House prices will not fall because of the airport, something I am sure will prove correct ).[/p][/quote]I do not know if this is true but I have been told that the houses under the flight path have this information written in their deeds , if this is the case surely this alone would cancel out any noise related claims. As any Lawyer would be able to point out that you purchased the house in full knowledge of the airport and its location. r6keith

10:41am Fri 14 Sep 12

openspace says...

I imagine that most if us will have noticed that many of those who belong to one protest group also belong to just about every other protest group available in our locality. What does that indicate , I wonder.
A constant wish to be in the public eye ?, probably
Lack of a decent hobby? possibly
A totally negative glass half empty mentality.? probably
A "Luddite" personality ? probably
or just possibly a wish to keep everything as it was, ignoring progress, ( which can admittedly cause some problems but is inevitable ). probably
The " Green" movement has much to say for it but needs to become more pragmatic.
Those opposing the airport, ( yes, they oppose the aiport in total, not expansion), the New Cliffs Museum proposal and other changes need to recognise that these moves may prove to be very welcome to the majority , and we live in society where majority wishes usually do, and should, prevail. I suspect that the Cliffs Pavilion, were it being built now, would result in a "stop the new pavilion " group. Look how successful that has been, a great asset to the town.
The new building at the end of the pier seems to be successful also with a number of events already with more under way, ( but an object of scorn by some, sad!!).
The latest " stop the demolition of the library" protest group is no surprise to most of us, and whilst we would wish to see the land used usefully, the buillding itself is of no great architectural interest and is unlikely to to receive protected status, there are limits to what we want to save.
I imagine that most if us will have noticed that many of those who belong to one protest group also belong to just about every other protest group available in our locality. What does that indicate , I wonder. A constant wish to be in the public eye ?, probably Lack of a decent hobby? possibly A totally negative glass half empty mentality.? probably A "Luddite" personality ? probably or just possibly a wish to keep everything as it was, ignoring progress, ( which can admittedly cause some problems but is inevitable ). probably The " Green" movement has much to say for it but needs to become more pragmatic. Those opposing the airport, ( yes, they oppose the aiport in total, not expansion), the New Cliffs Museum proposal and other changes need to recognise that these moves may prove to be very welcome to the majority , and we live in society where majority wishes usually do, and should, prevail. I suspect that the Cliffs Pavilion, were it being built now, would result in a "stop the new pavilion " group. Look how successful that has been, a great asset to the town. The new building at the end of the pier seems to be successful also with a number of events already with more under way, ( but an object of scorn by some, sad!!). The latest " stop the demolition of the library" protest group is no surprise to most of us, and whilst we would wish to see the land used usefully, the buillding itself is of no great architectural interest and is unlikely to to receive protected status, there are limits to what we want to save. openspace

11:04am Fri 14 Sep 12

openspace says...

openspace wrote:
I imagine that most if us will have noticed that many of those who belong to one protest group also belong to just about every other protest group available in our locality. What does that indicate , I wonder.
A constant wish to be in the public eye ?, probably
Lack of a decent hobby? possibly
A totally negative glass half empty mentality.? probably
A "Luddite" personality ? probably
or just possibly a wish to keep everything as it was, ignoring progress, ( which can admittedly cause some problems but is inevitable ). probably
The " Green" movement has much to say for it but needs to become more pragmatic.
Those opposing the airport, ( yes, they oppose the aiport in total, not expansion), the New Cliffs Museum proposal and other changes need to recognise that these moves may prove to be very welcome to the majority , and we live in society where majority wishes usually do, and should, prevail. I suspect that the Cliffs Pavilion, were it being built now, would result in a "stop the new pavilion " group. Look how successful that has been, a great asset to the town.
The new building at the end of the pier seems to be successful also with a number of events already with more under way, ( but an object of scorn by some, sad!!).
The latest " stop the demolition of the library" protest group is no surprise to most of us, and whilst we would wish to see the land used usefully, the buillding itself is of no great architectural interest and is unlikely to to receive protected status, there are limits to what we want to save.
I failed to mention that membership of local protest groups by the same old names probably is one of the very many reasons why most of them fail to attract any new popular support and that the groups would have more success if these people left, ( gave up, crawled away, moved, whatever !), Unlikely to happen however, I wonder .why ??).
Perhaps it is difficult to give up the perceived egotistical role of " saviour of our society "
Apologies if that sounds harsh but it is probably what the majority of people actually think.
[quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: I imagine that most if us will have noticed that many of those who belong to one protest group also belong to just about every other protest group available in our locality. What does that indicate , I wonder. A constant wish to be in the public eye ?, probably Lack of a decent hobby? possibly A totally negative glass half empty mentality.? probably A "Luddite" personality ? probably or just possibly a wish to keep everything as it was, ignoring progress, ( which can admittedly cause some problems but is inevitable ). probably The " Green" movement has much to say for it but needs to become more pragmatic. Those opposing the airport, ( yes, they oppose the aiport in total, not expansion), the New Cliffs Museum proposal and other changes need to recognise that these moves may prove to be very welcome to the majority , and we live in society where majority wishes usually do, and should, prevail. I suspect that the Cliffs Pavilion, were it being built now, would result in a "stop the new pavilion " group. Look how successful that has been, a great asset to the town. The new building at the end of the pier seems to be successful also with a number of events already with more under way, ( but an object of scorn by some, sad!!). The latest " stop the demolition of the library" protest group is no surprise to most of us, and whilst we would wish to see the land used usefully, the buillding itself is of no great architectural interest and is unlikely to to receive protected status, there are limits to what we want to save.[/p][/quote]I failed to mention that membership of local protest groups by the same old names probably is one of the very many reasons why most of them fail to attract any new popular support and that the groups would have more success if these people left, ( gave up, crawled away, moved, whatever !), Unlikely to happen however, I wonder .why ??). Perhaps it is difficult to give up the perceived egotistical role of " saviour of our society " Apologies if that sounds harsh but it is probably what the majority of people actually think. openspace

12:26pm Fri 14 Sep 12

JNFEnergy says...

Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points.

1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue.

2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession.

3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted.

4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport.

Regards to all.

Jon
Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon JNFEnergy

12:37pm Fri 14 Sep 12

j-w says...

Well tough, its already here.

People don't want to holiday in the UK who are you to tell them otherwise.
You views are completely dismissed as irrelevant when you start accusing people of murder just because their views differ from yours.

You are a campiagner, that is your job and if it wasn't the airport it would be something else.
Well tough, its already here. People don't want to holiday in the UK who are you to tell them otherwise. You views are completely dismissed as irrelevant when you start accusing people of murder just because their views differ from yours. You are a campiagner, that is your job and if it wasn't the airport it would be something else. j-w

1:16pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Rochford Rob says...

APR wrote:
Quote ".....One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. ...." Afterburners on a Hawk ? You'd get more noise from Cessna.
I did say the smaller planes were the noisiest, so yes, you are correct.

:)
[quote][p][bold]APR[/bold] wrote: Quote ".....One of the Red Arrows aircraft took off last week - on full afterburners. ...." Afterburners on a Hawk ? You'd get more noise from Cessna.[/p][/quote]I did say the smaller planes were the noisiest, so yes, you are correct. :) Rochford Rob

2:57pm Fri 14 Sep 12

southendshrimper says...

makes you think, how many of the people who are going for compo fly from Southend or other airports? I bet they don't care who's house they fly over then?
How many will answer this question.
Let me think.... NONE
if they do it will be the same old bs "I don't fly"
makes you think, how many of the people who are going for compo fly from Southend or other airports? I bet they don't care who's house they fly over then? How many will answer this question. Let me think.... NONE if they do it will be the same old bs "I don't fly" southendshrimper

5:59pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

JNFEnergy wrote:
Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon
A few questions:


1. If you were given the choice either The current operating agreement or The previous operating agreement to be enforce at Southend what one would you choose?


2. saen have always said they are not anti airport but you said on BBC Essex that you would bankrupt Stobarts and Dennis Walker has a photo on his twitter page of the airport tagged hope they go bust soon, so is the real foal of saen to get the airport closed down?


3. In your own words above "this is the wrong place for a regional airport" so you DO NOT want the airport FULL STOP so what would you want instead?


4. Would you agree that the airport has been good on the jobs front?


5. Why did saen use a picture of British Airways Boeing 747 taking off on a recent leaflet when fact clearly shows that neither British Airways nor 747s operate from Southend, surely this is misrepresentation of the facts, a disclaimer stating that it was entirely fictitious and in no way shape of form is representative of operations at Southend should have been included.


6. You state on your website that “We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered” where is the evidence why not publish it for everyone to see?
[quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon[/p][/quote]A few questions: 1. If you were given the choice either The current operating agreement or The previous operating agreement to be enforce at Southend what one would you choose? 2. saen have always said they are not anti airport but you said on BBC Essex that you would bankrupt Stobarts and Dennis Walker has a photo on his twitter page of the airport tagged hope they go bust soon, so is the real foal of saen to get the airport closed down? 3. In your own words above "this is the wrong place for a regional airport" so you DO NOT want the airport FULL STOP so what would you want instead? 4. Would you agree that the airport has been good on the jobs front? 5. Why did saen use a picture of British Airways Boeing 747 taking off on a recent leaflet when fact clearly shows that neither British Airways nor 747s operate from Southend, surely this is misrepresentation of the facts, a disclaimer stating that it was entirely fictitious and in no way shape of form is representative of operations at Southend should have been included. 6. You state on your website that “We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered” where is the evidence why not publish it for everyone to see? Max Impact

7:44am Sat 15 Sep 12

lovely says...

I had a spare hour or so to kill so thought id take a look at the saen website, they are saying the residents can not make a claim until the 8th March , but should start bysubmitt a claim now through the no win no fee solicitors? . Wondering how that would work ?, I know that once Eddie Sobbartt wins I will arrange for all the supporters to meet at the Eastwood community Centre to have our picture taken , I look forward to seeing you there.
I had a spare hour or so to kill so thought id take a look at the saen website, they are saying the residents can not make a claim until the 8th March , but should start bysubmitt a claim now through the no win no fee solicitors? . Wondering how that would work ?, I know that once Eddie Sobbartt wins I will arrange for all the supporters to meet at the Eastwood community Centre to have our picture taken , I look forward to seeing you there. lovely

9:29am Sat 15 Sep 12

Diannah says...

I don't understand the 'murder' claims. Is there a sniper at Southend Airport?
I don't understand the 'murder' claims. Is there a sniper at Southend Airport? Diannah

12:13pm Sat 15 Sep 12

openspace says...

JNFEnergy wrote:
Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points.

1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue.

2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession.

3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted.

4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport.

Regards to all.

Jon
Southend always was a regional airport and has been for about 60 years, it has merely been going through a quiet phase before, thankfully, recovering .

" have lost value in their homes !!!!", proof please, that will be fun trying to get !!!
" I understand the science relating to climate change", really ????

"A National policy to encourage Brits to stay at home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( and you live on what planet ??????).
[quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon[/p][/quote]Southend always was a regional airport and has been for about 60 years, it has merely been going through a quiet phase before, thankfully, recovering . " have lost value in their homes !!!!", proof please, that will be fun trying to get !!! " I understand the science relating to climate change", really ???? "A National policy to encourage Brits to stay at home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and you live on what planet ??????). openspace

1:38pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Nebs says...

openspace wrote:
JNFEnergy wrote:
Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points.

1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue.

2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession.

3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted.

4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport.

Regards to all.

Jon
Southend always was a regional airport and has been for about 60 years, it has merely been going through a quiet phase before, thankfully, recovering .

" have lost value in their homes !!!!", proof please, that will be fun trying to get !!!
" I understand the science relating to climate change", really ????

"A National policy to encourage Brits to stay at home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
( and you live on what planet ??????).
Perhaps a national policy to encourage Johnny Foreigner to have his holiday in the UK would be a better idea to reduce the aviation tourism deficit.
[quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon[/p][/quote]Southend always was a regional airport and has been for about 60 years, it has merely been going through a quiet phase before, thankfully, recovering . " have lost value in their homes !!!!", proof please, that will be fun trying to get !!! " I understand the science relating to climate change", really ???? "A National policy to encourage Brits to stay at home !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( and you live on what planet ??????).[/p][/quote]Perhaps a national policy to encourage Johnny Foreigner to have his holiday in the UK would be a better idea to reduce the aviation tourism deficit. Nebs

2:32pm Sat 15 Sep 12

j-w says...

Nebs, they have just had one of them, it was called the Olympics.
Nebs, they have just had one of them, it was called the Olympics. j-w

3:44pm Sat 15 Sep 12

openspace says...

JNFEnergy wrote:
Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points.

1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue.

2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession.

3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted.

4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport.

Regards to all.

Jon
"Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford"

OK let's look at that comment. I genuinely picked three airports at random around the country to see what the housing levels around.them were like.
( Google satellite view )

Norwich, Southampton and Blackpool, all similar in size and useage to Southend, and guess what ?????. All have very large housing estates within 500m or so of the runways and takeoff/landing flightpaths.
Perhaps I happened to pick three of the "few airports in the UK", but I doubt it.

Why do most campaigners spoil any valid arguments they may have with added wild inaccuracies, ??????, Some people, as I said earlier, would do their causes a favour by leaving them to those who stick to facts and sensible debate.
[quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon[/p][/quote]"Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford" OK let's look at that comment. I genuinely picked three airports at random around the country to see what the housing levels around.them were like. ( Google satellite view ) Norwich, Southampton and Blackpool, all similar in size and useage to Southend, and guess what ?????. All have very large housing estates within 500m or so of the runways and takeoff/landing flightpaths. Perhaps I happened to pick three of the "few airports in the UK", but I doubt it. Why do most campaigners spoil any valid arguments they may have with added wild inaccuracies, ??????, Some people, as I said earlier, would do their causes a favour by leaving them to those who stick to facts and sensible debate. openspace

4:51pm Sat 15 Sep 12

lovely says...

JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you
JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you lovely

6:35pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Max Impact wrote:
JNFEnergy wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon
A few questions: 1. If you were given the choice either The current operating agreement or The previous operating agreement to be enforce at Southend what one would you choose? 2. saen have always said they are not anti airport but you said on BBC Essex that you would bankrupt Stobarts and Dennis Walker has a photo on his twitter page of the airport tagged hope they go bust soon, so is the real foal of saen to get the airport closed down? 3. In your own words above "this is the wrong place for a regional airport" so you DO NOT want the airport FULL STOP so what would you want instead? 4. Would you agree that the airport has been good on the jobs front? 5. Why did saen use a picture of British Airways Boeing 747 taking off on a recent leaflet when fact clearly shows that neither British Airways nor 747s operate from Southend, surely this is misrepresentation of the facts, a disclaimer stating that it was entirely fictitious and in no way shape of form is representative of operations at Southend should have been included. 6. You state on your website that “We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered” where is the evidence why not publish it for everyone to see?
Quoting myself to try and get answers to my questions.

Another question Jon, your name on here is JNF Energy is that the Palm Oil compnay based in Malaysia?
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks - I have been too busy to comment on the points made here so far. So I have probably missed the boat. But I will make a couple of points. 1. Yes - I am a climate change campaigner. I understand the science relating to climate change, I agree with the scientific community that this is already resulting in mass loss of human life (currently around 300,000 people per annum) and am extremely concerned that this loss of life is accelerating. So that is why I have been so active in opposing a range of polluting activities for so many years - including the proposals for expansion at Southend and the Estuary Airport scheme. So - it is the hard science that dictates my response to this issue. 2. The economic claims made for expansion of aviation are dubious - we Brits spend far more abroad than foreign tourists spend here. The aviaiton tourism deficit currently stands at around £15 billion. What is needed is a national policy to try to get more Brits to holiday at home "staycation" . We urgently need to pursue this policy during our current recession. 3. I don't understand why some who have commented here object to those, who have lost value from their property, from claiming for compensation. This is normal business practice. Alaistair Welch didn't seem to object when he responded to my interview on BBC Essex. It is just normal business practice. Whether you open a new motorway or High Speed rail, or airport - the body concerned has to pay for loss of value to others adversely impacted. 4. Please remember that few airports in the UK have as much housing immediately around the airport as we see here in Southend/Rochford. The local councils permitted the construction of a huge amount of additional housing - something that should never have been permitted in government planned to expand an airport next to those new homes. Put simply - this is the wrong place for a regional airport. Regards to all. Jon[/p][/quote]A few questions: 1. If you were given the choice either The current operating agreement or The previous operating agreement to be enforce at Southend what one would you choose? 2. saen have always said they are not anti airport but you said on BBC Essex that you would bankrupt Stobarts and Dennis Walker has a photo on his twitter page of the airport tagged hope they go bust soon, so is the real foal of saen to get the airport closed down? 3. In your own words above "this is the wrong place for a regional airport" so you DO NOT want the airport FULL STOP so what would you want instead? 4. Would you agree that the airport has been good on the jobs front? 5. Why did saen use a picture of British Airways Boeing 747 taking off on a recent leaflet when fact clearly shows that neither British Airways nor 747s operate from Southend, surely this is misrepresentation of the facts, a disclaimer stating that it was entirely fictitious and in no way shape of form is representative of operations at Southend should have been included. 6. You state on your website that “We have strong evidence that complaints to London Southend Airport about noise are not being registered” where is the evidence why not publish it for everyone to see?[/p][/quote]Quoting myself to try and get answers to my questions. Another question Jon, your name on here is JNF Energy is that the Palm Oil compnay based in Malaysia? Max Impact

9:35am Sun 16 Sep 12

openspace says...

lovely wrote:
JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you
Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so.
Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful.
They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them.
PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.
[quote][p][bold]lovely[/bold] wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you[/p][/quote]Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like. openspace

10:33am Sun 16 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

openspace wrote:
lovely wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you
Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.
Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter.

The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill.

What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar.
[quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lovely[/bold] wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you[/p][/quote]Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.[/p][/quote]Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter. The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill. What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar. Max Impact

12:26pm Sun 16 Sep 12

lovely says...

Max Impact wrote:
openspace wrote:
lovely wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you
Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.
Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter. The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill. What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar.
max impact and open space I totally agreee ,I have flown from Southend in the last few months and had a great service travelled from Hockley trains station to Airport took me half hour and i think cost single ticket £1..60 compared to the £150 to park at the larger airports, also no petrol to pay or exhaust fumes. JNF energy I would call that eco friendly, Another thought , if the airport closes there would be prime building land available, there wouldn't be any people in the protest group that have an intrest or work for building or land companies.I couldn't think of anything worse than a sprawing estate on my door step,
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lovely[/bold] wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you[/p][/quote]Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.[/p][/quote]Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter. The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill. What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar.[/p][/quote]max impact and open space I totally agreee ,I have flown from Southend in the last few months and had a great service travelled from Hockley trains station to Airport took me half hour and i think cost single ticket £1..60 compared to the £150 to park at the larger airports, also no petrol to pay or exhaust fumes. JNF energy I would call that eco friendly, Another thought , if the airport closes there would be prime building land available, there wouldn't be any people in the protest group that have an intrest or work for building or land companies.I couldn't think of anything worse than a sprawing estate on my door step, lovely

5:32pm Sun 16 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

lovely wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
openspace wrote:
lovely wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you
Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.
Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter. The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill. What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar.
max impact and open space I totally agreee ,I have flown from Southend in the last few months and had a great service travelled from Hockley trains station to Airport took me half hour and i think cost single ticket £1..60 compared to the £150 to park at the larger airports, also no petrol to pay or exhaust fumes. JNF energy I would call that eco friendly, Another thought , if the airport closes there would be prime building land available, there wouldn't be any people in the protest group that have an intrest or work for building or land companies.I couldn't think of anything worse than a sprawing estate on my door step,
Agree with how easy it is for the people of Southend to access the airport, took me all of 15-20mins to walk from Mendip Crescent to the airport, on the way back was home 20mins after landing.

If Carlsberg made airports...
[quote][p][bold]lovely[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lovely[/bold] wrote: JNF Energy ...the part where you say "WHEN YOU OPEN A" people receive compensation because of a new build e.g a motorway running through their village Now... The Airport already existed before so how can you all claim compensation ? I would be intrested to know the amount of compensation the residents of Heathrow have received for their expansion if any ! As for holiday in this country I have seen enough of this country when my daughters were growing up , we chose to holiday in this countryfor the convenince, now it is time to travel and see the world. Remember the Film Truman show. Sorry but i'd rather not have you campain for my standards of living thank you[/p][/quote]Quite right, the aiport has been there for about 80 years or so. Was there a move to claim compensation when the very noisy flights of the 60's came along, of course not. Whilst some pressure groups may serve useful purposes, I think many of them exist to allow publicity for the egotistical members of our society to seek publicity, and are rarely,if ever, successful. They are, of course, hugely successful in wasting taxpayers money in fighting them in the courts, and greedy solicitors love them for the vast amount of money they make from them. PS The human rights issue is frequently quoted these days, perhaps it is our human right to be able to travel wherever we like.[/p][/quote]Remember the high court appeal after appeal after appeal saen had going on WITH legal aid. Not only were we hit with that bill but the council had to pay to defend itself dispite the Judge stating that the planning law had been followed to the letter. The end bill to Southend was £56,927.12. Sadly saen were not told to pay the bill. What about the human right of those that want to ease of a thriving local airport, no long drive to another airport, quick exit and jobs being created or do those that want to see progress not count on saens radar.[/p][/quote]max impact and open space I totally agreee ,I have flown from Southend in the last few months and had a great service travelled from Hockley trains station to Airport took me half hour and i think cost single ticket £1..60 compared to the £150 to park at the larger airports, also no petrol to pay or exhaust fumes. JNF energy I would call that eco friendly, Another thought , if the airport closes there would be prime building land available, there wouldn't be any people in the protest group that have an intrest or work for building or land companies.I couldn't think of anything worse than a sprawing estate on my door step,[/p][/quote]Agree with how easy it is for the people of Southend to access the airport, took me all of 15-20mins to walk from Mendip Crescent to the airport, on the way back was home 20mins after landing. If Carlsberg made airports... Max Impact

2:26pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Max Impact says...

Not looking like I will get a reply, oh well.

Expect the next airport related story any day now, people renting out their driveways for people to park when on holiday, wonder how many of them are after compo?
Not looking like I will get a reply, oh well. Expect the next airport related story any day now, people renting out their driveways for people to park when on holiday, wonder how many of them are after compo? Max Impact

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree