Hundreds of homeowners seeking compensation from Southend Airport

8:00am Thursday 15th November 2012 in Local News By David Trayner

SAEN member Jon Fuller addressing the meeting that set up the Compensation Group SAEN member Jon Fuller addressing the meeting that set up the Compensation Group

MORE than 800 homeowners have signed up with surveyors to seek compensation if Southend Airport’s expansion has devalued their homes.

And a group formed to share information on claims, named the Compensation Group, has more than 200 members, with more reportedly joining daily.

Graham Whitehead, chairman of anti-airport group Stop Airport Expansion and Noise, which has a separate committee from the Compensation Group but pays its administration costs, said: “I’m very happy for the numbers to be this high because it vindicates what we’ve been saying all along – that this is going to impact negatively on property values.

“The fact that surveyors will take on these claims, which will cost money to pursue, suggests they believe compensation is a possibility.”

Three surveyors are offering to value 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.

Westcliff-based chartered surveyor Michael Marriott has more than 500 clients, Cardiff-based surveyors Carrick and Co have more than 300 and chartered surveyor Chris Hunt, of Hunt Scott, Dorking, has about 60.

Mr Marriott, who spoke at a meeting organised by SAEN that launched the Compensation Group in September, said clients have reported an increase in nuisance from noise, smell, fumes and flights at unsocial hours since the runway was extended in March and are concerned the nuisance will intensify as the airport operator succeeds in establishing increasing numbers of flights and carriers, some with larger planes.

But he warned: “Only after all the evidence is received and considered will it become clear if any compensation is due.

“Post runway extension noise readings and all other evidence in the public domain will be considered next year. Claims will be made next year, where after discussions with the airport operator will be sought.”

Claimants will have to prove their home has been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes. Claims must be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension, on March 8.

If surveyors and the airport cannot agree on a valuation, claimants will be able to take their cases to court.

Alistair Welch, managing director of the airport, said: “People who believe they are impacted by the development of London Southend Airport are entitled to make a claim one year from when the development was finished “When these claims are made, there will be a detailed and thorough assessment over a period of time that will evaluate a number of factors.

“However previous cases over similar developments have shown this work may take a considerable number of years to complete. If there are any claims that are proved, then we would certainly meet our responsibilities.

“As always, we advise local residents to carefully check the companies who they are planning to represent them in any action.”

To join the compensation group, visit www.saen.org.uk.

Comments (109)

8:19am Thu 15 Nov 12

r6keith says...

Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?
Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ? r6keith

8:35am Thu 15 Nov 12

j-w says...

Claims must be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension, on March 8.


I don't think that is correct before there is a flurry of claimants.

I think claims can be made after a year of operation (in this case the runway extension) and must be made within 6 years.

In fact your very next paragraph states that in an answer given by Al A stair Welch!
[quote]Claims must be submitted within a year of completion of the runway extension, on March 8. [/quote] I don't think that is correct before there is a flurry of claimants. I think claims can be made after a year of operation (in this case the runway extension) and must be made within 6 years. In fact your very next paragraph states that in an answer given by Al A stair Welch! j-w

8:45am Thu 15 Nov 12

howironic says...

Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression?

If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it.

I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.
Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression? If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it. I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with. howironic

8:46am Thu 15 Nov 12

AndyBSG says...

It's bad enough we have 'Benefit Britain' alive and well but now we can add 'Compensation Country' to the list.

It's a joke that people buying a home under an airport flight path can try to claim compensation.

Do they expect the airports to stop trying to grow just because people choose to buy there and think that gives them a right to stifle business and commerce?

This country really does make me sick at times.
It's bad enough we have 'Benefit Britain' alive and well but now we can add 'Compensation Country' to the list. It's a joke that people buying a home under an airport flight path can try to claim compensation. Do they expect the airports to stop trying to grow just because people choose to buy there and think that gives them a right to stifle business and commerce? This country really does make me sick at times. AndyBSG

8:49am Thu 15 Nov 12

Brunning999 says...

It is a familiar story Legal Begals earning a quick buck hope it's is no win no fee basis.
It is a familiar story Legal Begals earning a quick buck hope it's is no win no fee basis. Brunning999

8:49am Thu 15 Nov 12

Brunning999 says...

It is a familiar story Legal Begals earning a quick buck hope it's is no win no fee basis.
It is a familiar story Legal Begals earning a quick buck hope it's is no win no fee basis. Brunning999

8:54am Thu 15 Nov 12

Thecountrysgonetopot! says...

A friend of mine moved onto prices avenue a few months back and recieved a letter with regards to compensation. A few days later someone called at thehouse and asked if they wanted to join in claiming comp, my friend replied that she had only just bought the house and was well aware of the airport behind her garden to which the visitor said "that doesnt matter your still entitled to sue and claim"! She basically told them where to go. It seems somepeople are out for what they can get regardless of if they are affected or not. My friend has told me that even though she is right at the bottom of the runway the planes really dont bother her, its the constant ambulances and police cars with their blue lights and sirens that are more noisey
A friend of mine moved onto prices avenue a few months back and recieved a letter with regards to compensation. A few days later someone called at thehouse and asked if they wanted to join in claiming comp, my friend replied that she had only just bought the house and was well aware of the airport behind her garden to which the visitor said "that doesnt matter your still entitled to sue and claim"! She basically told them where to go. It seems somepeople are out for what they can get regardless of if they are affected or not. My friend has told me that even though she is right at the bottom of the runway the planes really dont bother her, its the constant ambulances and police cars with their blue lights and sirens that are more noisey Thecountrysgonetopot!

8:56am Thu 15 Nov 12

Thecountrysgonetopot! says...

That should be princes, just in case someone feels the need to correct me
That should be princes, just in case someone feels the need to correct me Thecountrysgonetopot!

9:03am Thu 15 Nov 12

openspace says...

Hopefully, the solicitors taking on these cases will fail miserably in the claims and incur costs they cannot reclaim. These claims are all about greed and opportunism.
Hopefully, the solicitors taking on these cases will fail miserably in the claims and incur costs they cannot reclaim. These claims are all about greed and opportunism. openspace

9:07am Thu 15 Nov 12

notinwestcliffanymore says...

When i moved to a tree lined avenue NO ONE told me i would have to sweep leaves up every weekend in autum, This is so unfair and i want to sue as they are not my leaves, whats even worse are the planes screamming over head as i work, how long has ruddy airport been there?, Also NO ONE told me that when i paid out for sea view that i would only be able to see it twice a day more compo i think
When i moved to a tree lined avenue NO ONE told me i would have to sweep leaves up every weekend in autum, This is so unfair and i want to sue as they are not my leaves, whats even worse are the planes screamming over head as i work, how long has ruddy airport been there?, Also NO ONE told me that when i paid out for sea view that i would only be able to see it twice a day more compo i think notinwestcliffanymore

9:15am Thu 15 Nov 12

belfairs says...

so are all these 'hundreds' planning to sell up? of course not, but if so then I might pick up a bargain or two to rent to students
so are all these 'hundreds' planning to sell up? of course not, but if so then I might pick up a bargain or two to rent to students belfairs

9:17am Thu 15 Nov 12

maxell says...

I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved". surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation. maxell

9:18am Thu 15 Nov 12

belfairs says...

'Claimants will have to prove their home has been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes'.....live by the A127 and complain about that
'Claimants will have to prove their home has been devalued by noise, vibration, dust, smell, light pollution, discharge or fumes'.....live by the A127 and complain about that belfairs

9:20am Thu 15 Nov 12

jayman says...

r6keith wrote:
Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?
that counteracts the very generous position that the echo have had towards the airport.

as for house prices, we may as well have an open cast sulphur mine in Southend. it would have had less of an effect.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?[/p][/quote]that counteracts the very generous position that the echo have had towards the airport. as for house prices, we may as well have an open cast sulphur mine in Southend. it would have had less of an effect. jayman

9:34am Thu 15 Nov 12

Ian P says...

howironic wrote:
Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression? If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it. I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.
Apparently, if you purchased your property before 1914 and attend the meeting accompanied by both of your parents, compensation will be automatic.
[quote][p][bold]howironic[/bold] wrote: Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression? If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it. I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.[/p][/quote]Apparently, if you purchased your property before 1914 and attend the meeting accompanied by both of your parents, compensation will be automatic. Ian P

9:46am Thu 15 Nov 12

pussycats says...

howironic wrote:
Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression?

If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it.

I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.
Brilliant post. How can you possibly quantify any loss? A sad indictment of our burgeoning sue me, sue you culture. I,d like to sue the banks for crashing the economy. Any chance?
[quote][p][bold]howironic[/bold] wrote: Will the valuations be based solely on the potential impact of the airport or will the devaluation also take into account the reduction of house prices since the start of the 2008 depression? If house prices have gained value because of the airport, what happens to the equity? I'm sure the households will be more than happy to keep hold of it. I assume that if compensation is paid, it will only be paid to households that were living there before the airport was even built, otherwise you were a little naive to begin with.[/p][/quote]Brilliant post. How can you possibly quantify any loss? A sad indictment of our burgeoning sue me, sue you culture. I,d like to sue the banks for crashing the economy. Any chance? pussycats

9:53am Thu 15 Nov 12

notinwestcliffanymore says...

jayman wrote:
r6keith wrote: Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?
that counteracts the very generous position that the echo have had towards the airport. as for house prices, we may as well have an open cast sulphur mine in Southend. it would have had less of an effect.
Yeah Kingston and Richmond are the places to go to pick up cheap houses, er hang they are right under heathrows flight path.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: Can I make a claim if my local NEWS PAPER keeps printing this free advertising for what is no more than ambulance chasers ?[/p][/quote]that counteracts the very generous position that the echo have had towards the airport. as for house prices, we may as well have an open cast sulphur mine in Southend. it would have had less of an effect.[/p][/quote]Yeah Kingston and Richmond are the places to go to pick up cheap houses, er hang they are right under heathrows flight path. notinwestcliffanymore

9:54am Thu 15 Nov 12

r6keith says...

I wonder if our local MP the very honourable Mr David Amess has submitted his claim yet, he seems to claim for everything else !
I wonder if our local MP the very honourable Mr David Amess has submitted his claim yet, he seems to claim for everything else ! r6keith

10:21am Thu 15 Nov 12

maxell says...

most people had the sence to have their houses valuated prior the comencment of operations, so it will be easy to see the diference below national average. A good indicatiuon of this is where prospecting builders want to buy land , as if it is affected by the airport the property resale value will be lower.
most people had the sence to have their houses valuated prior the comencment of operations, so it will be easy to see the diference below national average. A good indicatiuon of this is where prospecting builders want to buy land , as if it is affected by the airport the property resale value will be lower. maxell

11:03am Thu 15 Nov 12

JNFEnergy says...

The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to.

But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.
The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to. But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately. JNFEnergy

11:18am Thu 15 Nov 12

j-w says...

Clear off with your climate change rubbish Mr Fuller, scientists are more often wrong than right.
Clear off with your climate change rubbish Mr Fuller, scientists are more often wrong than right. j-w

11:21am Thu 15 Nov 12

j-w says...

Besides this has nothing to do with Climate, this is about getting some cash on the back of a long overdue returning local asset.
Besides this has nothing to do with Climate, this is about getting some cash on the back of a long overdue returning local asset. j-w

12:25pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Rayleigh Reader says...

Can I make a claim from British Rail I live near Rayleigh Rail Station and never thought for one moment that there would be trains going up and down all day long? ;-)
Can I make a claim from British Rail I live near Rayleigh Rail Station and never thought for one moment that there would be trains going up and down all day long? ;-) Rayleigh Reader

12:50pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Diannah says...

JNFEnergy wrote:
The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to.

But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.
Have you thought about going to live in the Amazon? Believe there are still tribes there who haven't invented fire yet!

In the meantime, let the rest of us live in a world of progress. King Canute couldn't stop the tide and neither can you take us back to the dark ages.
[quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to. But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.[/p][/quote]Have you thought about going to live in the Amazon? Believe there are still tribes there who haven't invented fire yet! In the meantime, let the rest of us live in a world of progress. King Canute couldn't stop the tide and neither can you take us back to the dark ages. Diannah

1:25pm Thu 15 Nov 12

bongking says...

so if you get your compansation, does that mean things at the airport will change? will the prices of your houses go up in value, i don't think so, you may have a thew bob extra bob in your pocket, that it, you cannot stop progress!!!
so if you get your compansation, does that mean things at the airport will change? will the prices of your houses go up in value, i don't think so, you may have a thew bob extra bob in your pocket, that it, you cannot stop progress!!! bongking

1:27pm Thu 15 Nov 12

bongking says...

sorry about the mistake!
sorry about the mistake! bongking

2:23pm Thu 15 Nov 12

notinwestcliffanymore says...

Having said all that, how many will return the cheque pushed through the letter box,, not me
Having said all that, how many will return the cheque pushed through the letter box,, not me notinwestcliffanymore

2:38pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Max Impact says...

JNFEnergy wrote:
The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to.

But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.
Is this the same jnfenergy that is based in Malaysia dealing in Palm Oil?

If so how do you and or other staff visit Malaysia?
[quote][p][bold]JNFEnergy[/bold] wrote: The 1973 Land Act allows for people to be paid compensation for the loss of value of property so this legislation has been in place for a very long time. People can claim for loss of value but not for nuisance (noise, fumes, etc). You only get compensation for the degree to which a major development reduces the value of your home. The position in Southend is complicated because many hundreds of people have been slowly drifting away from the area. Some of those who knew what was coming got out well over a year ago. So property prices and our shared wealth has been declining for some time. The firms that specialise in helping residents claim the money they are due know that this is a complicated area of work but will do the best they can to help people to receive what they are legally entitled to. But the costs of climate change are even greater. The world's scientists now tell us that 400,000 people are killed annually by climate change and the cost of climate disrution now exceeds $1 trillion every year. So people who care about human life want all polluting industries, like aviation, to dramatically reduce emissions and to do so immediately.[/p][/quote]Is this the same jnfenergy that is based in Malaysia dealing in Palm Oil? If so how do you and or other staff visit Malaysia? Max Impact

2:39pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Max Impact says...

maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.
What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved". surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.[/p][/quote]What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA. Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name. Max Impact

2:51pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Eric Whim says...

are they all selling their houses then?
are they all selling their houses then? Eric Whim

3:29pm Thu 15 Nov 12

maxell says...

Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.
What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.
Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved". surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.[/p][/quote]What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA. Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.[/p][/quote]Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght maxell

3:40pm Thu 15 Nov 12

rjsizzler says...

So what about those living near the new airport station - surely that will have increased values being directly on the line into London in 15 minutes?
So what about those living near the new airport station - surely that will have increased values being directly on the line into London in 15 minutes? rjsizzler

3:46pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please.

I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport.

As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information.

I look forward to your response.
Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please. I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport. As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information. I look forward to your response. Joe Wildman

3:49pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

maxell wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.
What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.
Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght
My apologies I forgot at attach the quote of the comment I was referring to.


Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please.

I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport.

As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information.

I look forward to your response.”
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved". surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.[/p][/quote]What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA. Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.[/p][/quote]Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght[/p][/quote]My apologies I forgot at attach the quote of the comment I was referring to. Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please. I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport. As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information. I look forward to your response.” Joe Wildman

3:51pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Eric Whim says...

r6keith wrote:
I wonder if our local MP the very honourable Mr David Amess has submitted his claim yet, he seems to claim for everything else !
he's still busy queuing up at the local foodbank
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: I wonder if our local MP the very honourable Mr David Amess has submitted his claim yet, he seems to claim for everything else ![/p][/quote]he's still busy queuing up at the local foodbank Eric Whim

4:09pm Thu 15 Nov 12

alimac69 says...

And, I assume, not one of these people will be using Southend airport for their holiday flights?
And, I assume, not one of these people will be using Southend airport for their holiday flights? alimac69

4:16pm Thu 15 Nov 12

emcee says...

It does not matter how many claim compensation but you can rest assured that nearly all will recieve nothing and the others will be sorely disapointed.
It will be astronomically hard to prove loss of value based on the given criteria. Also, everyone concerned in awarding compensation will be fore-armed in the knowledge that these claims are being organised by disgruntled SAEN activists who are only using residents as ammo to try and inflict some kind of injury, after losing their little war.
It will all end in tears, for both SAEN and those residents trying in on.
It does not matter how many claim compensation but you can rest assured that nearly all will recieve nothing and the others will be sorely disapointed. It will be astronomically hard to prove loss of value based on the given criteria. Also, everyone concerned in awarding compensation will be fore-armed in the knowledge that these claims are being organised by disgruntled SAEN activists who are only using residents as ammo to try and inflict some kind of injury, after losing their little war. It will all end in tears, for both SAEN and those residents trying in on. emcee

5:21pm Thu 15 Nov 12

jolllyboy says...

Just the atrt I fear. How about the proposed attempt to compulsory purchase the land with a paddock on it now in Rochford to put new landing lights on. Stobarts must have know from the start this would be needed. What next ? Golf course got to go, ?RBS needs to go? seems all the time they want to expand. I reckon the airpost will be finished by the time the 10 years are up. Make your money while you can Stobart but dont think we will accept cargo when the flights dry up.
Just the atrt I fear. How about the proposed attempt to compulsory purchase the land with a paddock on it now in Rochford to put new landing lights on. Stobarts must have know from the start this would be needed. What next ? Golf course got to go, ?RBS needs to go? seems all the time they want to expand. I reckon the airpost will be finished by the time the 10 years are up. Make your money while you can Stobart but dont think we will accept cargo when the flights dry up. jolllyboy

5:44pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Druggie Scumbag says...

They're all a bunch of misguided (no)-chancers.
They're all a bunch of misguided (no)-chancers. Druggie Scumbag

6:02pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

emcee wrote:
It does not matter how many claim compensation but you can rest assured that nearly all will recieve nothing and the others will be sorely disapointed.
It will be astronomically hard to prove loss of value based on the given criteria. Also, everyone concerned in awarding compensation will be fore-armed in the knowledge that these claims are being organised by disgruntled SAEN activists who are only using residents as ammo to try and inflict some kind of injury, after losing their little war.
It will all end in tears, for both SAEN and those residents trying in on.
In a nutshell a good comment surely? You move to a town, it has an airport. The nearer you live to the airport the noise will increase. You moved to the town, with the airport 29 years ago - at that time, the airport was a small domestic facility with some commercial and private pilot use. Time moved on. Developments in travel change, jets come in, noisy jets, big jets,quiet jets or whatever. You still live near the airport - double glazing reduces the noise to a degree. The airport and its internal stakeholders have to survive and so in time it is taken over as a 'business' - it encourages further investment and more importantly provides employment - you still choose to live by the airport, either by choice or by regrettable design. You knew there was an airport - it just didn't appear - or like Topsy grew ! Activists can come and go, bells and whistles et al - but there is the stalemate, and you may win the battle but not the war. Southend as a council have no idea how to run a town - let alone what biscuits to have a meetings - have seen this first hand! Look around you .Stobart are a business, they have to survive they have come to the airport to run a business and it will grow and sustain all around it, jobs and the local external groups as well. You can now fly virtually door to door and see Granny in wherever quickly, as much as you oppose this now, in time you WILL use that airport, on your doorstep. Been through Stansted or Gatwick lately, in spite of trying to get there and park and pay for it - Servisair are a d
disgrace even to a shepherd. That's the dilemma ......
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: It does not matter how many claim compensation but you can rest assured that nearly all will recieve nothing and the others will be sorely disapointed. It will be astronomically hard to prove loss of value based on the given criteria. Also, everyone concerned in awarding compensation will be fore-armed in the knowledge that these claims are being organised by disgruntled SAEN activists who are only using residents as ammo to try and inflict some kind of injury, after losing their little war. It will all end in tears, for both SAEN and those residents trying in on.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell a good comment surely? You move to a town, it has an airport. The nearer you live to the airport the noise will increase. You moved to the town, with the airport 29 years ago - at that time, the airport was a small domestic facility with some commercial and private pilot use. Time moved on. Developments in travel change, jets come in, noisy jets, big jets,quiet jets or whatever. You still live near the airport - double glazing reduces the noise to a degree. The airport and its internal stakeholders have to survive and so in time it is taken over as a 'business' - it encourages further investment and more importantly provides employment - you still choose to live by the airport, either by choice or by regrettable design. You knew there was an airport - it just didn't appear - or like Topsy grew ! Activists can come and go, bells and whistles et al - but there is the stalemate, and you may win the battle but not the war. Southend as a council have no idea how to run a town - let alone what biscuits to have a meetings - have seen this first hand! Look around you .Stobart are a business, they have to survive they have come to the airport to run a business and it will grow and sustain all around it, jobs and the local external groups as well. You can now fly virtually door to door and see Granny in wherever quickly, as much as you oppose this now, in time you WILL use that airport, on your doorstep. Been through Stansted or Gatwick lately, in spite of trying to get there and park and pay for it - Servisair are a d disgrace even to a shepherd. That's the dilemma ...... Olivia2847

6:54pm Thu 15 Nov 12

EastStBoy says...

Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.
Population of Southend: 170,000 Claimants: 800 Says it all really. Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers. EastStBoy

6:59pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.
Thank you .....
[quote][p][bold]EastStBoy[/bold] wrote: Population of Southend: 170,000 Claimants: 800 Says it all really. Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.[/p][/quote]Thank you ..... Olivia2847

7:05pm Thu 15 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

..
.. sensiblelos

7:10pm Thu 15 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"? sensiblelos

7:30pm Thu 15 Nov 12

charwen says...

i think we are lucky to have it, it has given Southend/Rochford jobs for people and you are lucky to have a house, there are so many homeless out there, also that airport has always been there so why buy a house by it! being near the hospital is worse hearing the ambulances all the time and how many of you complainants will fly from the airport due to it being easier to travel from near home.
i think we are lucky to have it, it has given Southend/Rochford jobs for people and you are lucky to have a house, there are so many homeless out there, also that airport has always been there so why buy a house by it! being near the hospital is worse hearing the ambulances all the time and how many of you complainants will fly from the airport due to it being easier to travel from near home. charwen

7:46pm Thu 15 Nov 12

largo1 says...

oh i wish these people would shut-up complaining about non existant noise, i'm suck of hearing these pathetic people whinging all the time about the airport. southend airport is here to stay, if you don't like it then byee :)
oh i wish these people would shut-up complaining about non existant noise, i'm suck of hearing these pathetic people whinging all the time about the airport. southend airport is here to stay, if you don't like it then byee :) largo1

7:59pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval. Joe Wildman

8:08pm Thu 15 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote. sensiblelos

8:18pm Thu 15 Nov 12

jayman says...

EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.
so that sort of blows out the implication on here about everyone in Southend jumping on a bandwagon to claim compensation. only the most affected 800 who live closest to the airport ect ect.

seems reasonable to me..
[quote][p][bold]EastStBoy[/bold] wrote: Population of Southend: 170,000 Claimants: 800 Says it all really. Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.[/p][/quote]so that sort of blows out the implication on here about everyone in Southend jumping on a bandwagon to claim compensation. only the most affected 800 who live closest to the airport ect ect. seems reasonable to me.. jayman

8:47pm Thu 15 Nov 12

EastStBoy says...

The south facing flight path covers a lot more than the 800 people making claims. Realistically it must be thousands.

So if people are happy for 800 people to try and claim free money for something they could have objected to at the planning stage, then fine.

I know that everyone I have spoken to (including some that live extremely close to the airport) are excited over the prospect of the Airport's expansion.
The south facing flight path covers a lot more than the 800 people making claims. Realistically it must be thousands. So if people are happy for 800 people to try and claim free money for something they could have objected to at the planning stage, then fine. I know that everyone I have spoken to (including some that live extremely close to the airport) are excited over the prospect of the Airport's expansion. EastStBoy

9:13pm Thu 15 Nov 12

siddymint says...

A thought , what if with all the jobs etc people want to live near the airport and propoties increase in price.
Do these people then pay the airport compensation
A thought , what if with all the jobs etc people want to live near the airport and propoties increase in price. Do these people then pay the airport compensation siddymint

9:33pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

charwen wrote:
i think we are lucky to have it, it has given Southend/Rochford jobs for people and you are lucky to have a house, there are so many homeless out there, also that airport has always been there so why buy a house by it! being near the hospital is worse hearing the ambulances all the time and how many of you complainants will fly from the airport due to it being easier to travel from near home.
What a stonking answer we'll done, sorry that's sounds patronising but thanks ...
[quote][p][bold]charwen[/bold] wrote: i think we are lucky to have it, it has given Southend/Rochford jobs for people and you are lucky to have a house, there are so many homeless out there, also that airport has always been there so why buy a house by it! being near the hospital is worse hearing the ambulances all the time and how many of you complainants will fly from the airport due to it being easier to travel from near home.[/p][/quote]What a stonking answer we'll done, sorry that's sounds patronising but thanks ... Olivia2847

11:00pm Thu 15 Nov 12

pipeman says...

I bet S.A.E.N hope they can bring the airport down with this, the bottom line with that lot is they utterly hate any form of commercial aviation activity, they would love to see the airport closed and all those people employed at the airport out of work as soon as possible.
I bet S.A.E.N hope they can bring the airport down with this, the bottom line with that lot is they utterly hate any form of commercial aviation activity, they would love to see the airport closed and all those people employed at the airport out of work as soon as possible. pipeman

12:44am Fri 16 Nov 12

BASILBRUSH says...

maxell wrote:
most people had the sence to have their houses valuated prior the comencment of operations, so it will be easy to see the diference below national average. A good indicatiuon of this is where prospecting builders want to buy land , as if it is affected by the airport the property resale value will be lower.
Was it a 'valuation' from an Estate Agent (Otherwise known as Market appraisal), or from a Chartered Surveyor?
If it was a Market appraisal then they may well have wasted their time if they wish to use it for legal comparison... just a thought.

As most will know, I fully support the Airport. It is a valuable asset to the town and has been a major employer for decades.
IF people are found to be genuinely out of pocket due to the Airport and expansion and subsequently legally entitled to compensation, then good luck to them......Having said that, I dont like the compensation culture,the chancer element and companies after a quick Buck.
Like insurance and its personal injury claims, we all end up paying for it in the long run.

I'd imagine even if they are 'no win no fee', the Lawyer/Surveyor will probably take a hefty percentage of the bounty if they are successful.

Maxell regarding one of your earlier posts, bearing in mind Height is defined as above ground and Altitude is above Sea level. Leigh is actually a maximum of about 276' elevation (this is marked as Thundersley/ S Benfleet) above mean sea level with the Airport at 49' above mean Sea level...Based on that I would be surprised if Leigh was 380-400'?

I reckon this story will run for quite a long time....... Perhaps the claimants (who I have no doubt use/will use the Airport) will put any 'winnings' towards a holiday. ;)
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: most people had the sence to have their houses valuated prior the comencment of operations, so it will be easy to see the diference below national average. A good indicatiuon of this is where prospecting builders want to buy land , as if it is affected by the airport the property resale value will be lower.[/p][/quote]Was it a 'valuation' from an Estate Agent (Otherwise known as Market appraisal), or from a Chartered Surveyor? If it was a Market appraisal then they may well have wasted their time if they wish to use it for legal comparison... just a thought. As most will know, I fully support the Airport. It is a valuable asset to the town and has been a major employer for decades. IF people are found to be genuinely out of pocket due to the Airport and expansion and subsequently legally entitled to compensation, then good luck to them......Having said that, I dont like the compensation culture,the chancer element and companies after a quick Buck. Like insurance and its personal injury claims, we all end up paying for it in the long run. I'd imagine even if they are 'no win no fee', the Lawyer/Surveyor will probably take a hefty percentage of the bounty if they are successful. Maxell regarding one of your earlier posts, bearing in mind Height is defined as above ground and Altitude is above Sea level. Leigh is actually a maximum of about 276' elevation (this is marked as Thundersley/ S Benfleet) above mean sea level with the Airport at 49' above mean Sea level...Based on that I would be surprised if Leigh was 380-400'? I reckon this story will run for quite a long time....... Perhaps the claimants (who I have no doubt use/will use the Airport) will put any 'winnings' towards a holiday. ;) BASILBRUSH

10:00am Fri 16 Nov 12

Old Boy says...

Not this again, don't you think we have had enough. You lost so there you go.

As I have said before how many of you protesters have used the airport?.

Not all but some.
And you bleat about the noise.
Not this again, don't you think we have had enough. You lost so there you go. As I have said before how many of you protesters have used the airport?. Not all but some. And you bleat about the noise. Old Boy

10:17am Fri 16 Nov 12

largo1 says...

boy racer's in their cr@ppy souped up car's make more noise than planes from the airport.
boy racer's in their cr@ppy souped up car's make more noise than planes from the airport. largo1

1:02pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Walt Jabsco says...

jayman wrote:
EastStBoy wrote:
Population of Southend: 170,000
Claimants: 800

Says it all really.

Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.
so that sort of blows out the implication on here about everyone in Southend jumping on a bandwagon to claim compensation. only the most affected 800 who live closest to the airport ect ect.

seems reasonable to me..
whats reasonable? getting rid of the 'gimpish chancers'? sounds reasonable to me.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EastStBoy[/bold] wrote: Population of Southend: 170,000 Claimants: 800 Says it all really. Part of me hopes that they only be given compensation so they can move away from this town. It would be worth it to get rid of such gimpish chancers.[/p][/quote]so that sort of blows out the implication on here about everyone in Southend jumping on a bandwagon to claim compensation. only the most affected 800 who live closest to the airport ect ect. seems reasonable to me..[/p][/quote]whats reasonable? getting rid of the 'gimpish chancers'? sounds reasonable to me. Walt Jabsco

1:06pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Walt Jabsco says...

If these supposed 800 do get their promised pot of gold it should be written into the compensation payout that they agree that if they ever fly from Southend Airport or indeed any other airport in the world then they have to pay compensation to the inhabitants under the flightpath.
If these supposed 800 do get their promised pot of gold it should be written into the compensation payout that they agree that if they ever fly from Southend Airport or indeed any other airport in the world then they have to pay compensation to the inhabitants under the flightpath. Walt Jabsco

2:37pm Fri 16 Nov 12

madmax1 says...

Money grabbing filth.

I hope their homes shrink in value.
Money grabbing filth. I hope their homes shrink in value. madmax1

3:02pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

It would be an interesting task to compare a list of those claiming against a list of people who are advertising their driveway for cheap parking.

Whilst I know it is not illegal to do so, many insurance companies could use legal loop holes to get out of paying should a vehicle be damaged or stolen whilst parked upon a rented private property.

The car insurance company could with draw cover for the car forcing the owner to claim against the home owner, however the home owners insurance might not include cover for the use of the property to be used for business practices as such the renting out of the drive way could fall within.

It must also be remembered that all the money collected must to declared to the tax and revenue office, furthermore if the home is rented than permission from the landlord must be obtained as the rental agreement would probably exclude any business being operated from the property.

Another point should the home owner be in receipt of disability payments and be resisted as unfit to work the money taken must also be declared to the Income Support unit.

Let’s say there are 160,000 in Southend and let’s say 1000 have signed up that works out at 0.625% of the population of Southend, now I am no mathematician but something tells me that is below the majority that saen claim to be opposed to the airport.
It would be an interesting task to compare a list of those claiming against a list of people who are advertising their driveway for cheap parking. Whilst I know it is not illegal to do so, many insurance companies could use legal loop holes to get out of paying should a vehicle be damaged or stolen whilst parked upon a rented private property. The car insurance company could with draw cover for the car forcing the owner to claim against the home owner, however the home owners insurance might not include cover for the use of the property to be used for business practices as such the renting out of the drive way could fall within. It must also be remembered that all the money collected must to declared to the tax and revenue office, furthermore if the home is rented than permission from the landlord must be obtained as the rental agreement would probably exclude any business being operated from the property. Another point should the home owner be in receipt of disability payments and be resisted as unfit to work the money taken must also be declared to the Income Support unit. Let’s say there are 160,000 in Southend and let’s say 1000 have signed up that works out at 0.625% of the population of Southend, now I am no mathematician but something tells me that is below the majority that saen claim to be opposed to the airport. Joe Wildman

3:54pm Fri 16 Nov 12

r6keith says...

sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
Back in the 60's when the airport was busy exactly the same loss of value in property must have occured.If we are to believe the current hype when the airport was less busy people must have made extra money from the increase in value because of the surrounding serenity. If this is the case then those residents that sold during the quite years should pay the difference to those that feel they have had thier houses devalued today. There is another way to look at this if these claimants have purchased their propertys during the early busy times of the airport then surely they could have no claim as the prices must have been reflecting the houses location and the planes stumbling overhead. Anyway why should the council pay ? Because the airport is being run as a bussiness as it should and employing local people ! Or maybe because residents purchased houses in the wrong place thats not the Council or Stobarts problem is it really.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]Back in the 60's when the airport was busy exactly the same loss of value in property must have occured.If we are to believe the current hype when the airport was less busy people must have made extra money from the increase in value because of the surrounding serenity. If this is the case then those residents that sold during the quite years should pay the difference to those that feel they have had thier houses devalued today. There is another way to look at this if these claimants have purchased their propertys during the early busy times of the airport then surely they could have no claim as the prices must have been reflecting the houses location and the planes stumbling overhead. Anyway why should the council pay ? Because the airport is being run as a bussiness as it should and employing local people ! Or maybe because residents purchased houses in the wrong place thats not the Council or Stobarts problem is it really. r6keith

4:02pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
maxell wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved".
surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.
What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA.

Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.
Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght
My apologies I forgot at attach the quote of the comment I was referring to.


Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please.

I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport.

As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information.

I look forward to your response.”
maxell:

I have still not been able to trace any information relating to this case you are referring to in your previous comment on this thread.

I would like to ask you again to supply a link to any and all information relating to it.

If you do not have this information please just come out and admit to it, by not responding you are making the comment you posted as fact to be looked at with doubt not just by those pro-airport but by myself and probably by those who are anti-airport.

I am not asking for the world just for a link so that your comment can be substantiated by everyone on here.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: I thinK I would be right in saying that because an airport has developed people have a legal right to seek compensation regardless if they have bought there house(complete by this date) "in this case" a day before the 8th. Under normal circumstances councils and press will promote the fact that compensation could be applied for, but many residents did not even know that they could submit a claim, bsaically they are being mugged over, how can any council show this much diisregard to 60- 70 thousand people, that are now affected by the airport, you would not think that people in burnham and woodham would be suffering but they are aircraft are stacking over them at quite low alitude, the airpoirt document aircraft height over leigh at 700 feet, but they fail to state that this is above sea level, leigh is about 380-400 ASL making the aircraft over properties only 300-320 feet. You dont have to be anti airport to seek compensation, in fact there are hundreds of pro airport suppoters seeking compensation right now "strange how loyalty goes out of the window when pound notes are waved". surveyers know that they can make money , and they would not bother taking on clients if there was a zero chance of not winning. the bottom line no matter what anybody says, however much they try to justify thenselves if you have been affected by airport operations it is your legal right seek compensation.[/p][/quote]What when the regulations state 500ft as set down by the CAA. Looks like Maxell is fatgezzers other log in name.[/p][/quote]Are the pennys dropped , what are you suggesting the airport would not tell the truth when its has been reported recently that airport owner has admitted in court to over 6000 airport related breaches tinkler vs Elliot may be 6001 the last about heght[/p][/quote]My apologies I forgot at attach the quote of the comment I was referring to. Would you be able and willing to provide a link to any and all information relating to this court case please. I ask as I have not been able to track down any information relating to any court case that you refer to, relating to Stobart facing court action in relation to the operations at Southend Airport. As I have had no luck in this I would respectfully request that you would aid me in the task of finding this information. I look forward to your response.”[/p][/quote]maxell: I have still not been able to trace any information relating to this case you are referring to in your previous comment on this thread. I would like to ask you again to supply a link to any and all information relating to it. If you do not have this information please just come out and admit to it, by not responding you are making the comment you posted as fact to be looked at with doubt not just by those pro-airport but by myself and probably by those who are anti-airport. I am not asking for the world just for a link so that your comment can be substantiated by everyone on here. Joe Wildman

6:10pm Fri 16 Nov 12

tophatdt says...

Where did you read that Leigh is almost 400 feet amsl? I think the tallest blocks of flat are nearer to the coast, in which case aircraft flying on a three degree glidepath would be at approximately 1200 feet amsl......so what's the problem?
Where did you read that Leigh is almost 400 feet amsl? I think the tallest blocks of flat are nearer to the coast, in which case aircraft flying on a three degree glidepath would be at approximately 1200 feet amsl......so what's the problem? tophatdt

6:12pm Fri 16 Nov 12

tophatdt says...

Oh, i forgot to mention....what a sad bunch of moneygrabbers....hop
e they win nothing.
Oh, i forgot to mention....what a sad bunch of moneygrabbers....hop e they win nothing. tophatdt

6:12pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Back to the book of basics again children! Re my last post! The airport is here, it is run as a business. Stobarts are in business to make money, and provide a return both financial and whatever for bothe the internal and external stakeholders. This forms the part of the overall palette within any community - we could have a coal mine, steelworks, oil refinery, glue renderers et al on our doorstep. The length and width of the runway, how it is lit, how it works in fog, rain or shine is immaterial. How high the planes fly on take off or landing, if they have lights flashing, engines revving or whatever is also immaterial; whether the Church, golf course, small holdings, Avro Centre, farmers, residents, landowners or whatever. The airport is HERE TO STAY - Stobarts are not treating this venture as a pantomime - do you think that Mr Stobart spends sleepless nights worrying about the blogs in the Southend Pipe and Slippers Gazette? Southend has to progress, we are run by the unknowing who when had a libdem majority rolled over and gave it back to the Tories - two useless MP's run by a Bo Peep leader!keep posting your feelings, that is your choice, it helps the Echo fill space otherwise give over to TOWIE, Strictly, dog bites Postman etc.
Back to the book of basics again children! Re my last post! The airport is here, it is run as a business. Stobarts are in business to make money, and provide a return both financial and whatever for bothe the internal and external stakeholders. This forms the part of the overall palette within any community - we could have a coal mine, steelworks, oil refinery, glue renderers et al on our doorstep. The length and width of the runway, how it is lit, how it works in fog, rain or shine is immaterial. How high the planes fly on take off or landing, if they have lights flashing, engines revving or whatever is also immaterial; whether the Church, golf course, small holdings, Avro Centre, farmers, residents, landowners or whatever. The airport is HERE TO STAY - Stobarts are not treating this venture as a pantomime - do you think that Mr Stobart spends sleepless nights worrying about the blogs in the Southend Pipe and Slippers Gazette? Southend has to progress, we are run by the unknowing who when had a libdem majority rolled over and gave it back to the Tories - two useless MP's run by a Bo Peep leader!keep posting your feelings, that is your choice, it helps the Echo fill space otherwise give over to TOWIE, Strictly, dog bites Postman etc. Olivia2847

6:16pm Fri 16 Nov 12

tophatdt says...

well said Olivia2847
well said Olivia2847 tophatdt

6:41pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

tophatdt wrote:
well said Olivia2847
Thank you, I know that this is an emotive topic for many but it simple terms that's how I feel .....
[quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: well said Olivia2847[/p][/quote]Thank you, I know that this is an emotive topic for many but it simple terms that's how I feel ..... Olivia2847

9:36pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Thomo100 says...

What a waste of time and energy. This will gain nothing and nobody will ever get any money.
I live near a road and cars keep driving past, does anyone want to join me in a group, lets go for it and see what we will get!
ALL members of this stupid group should commit to give the EXTRA money that their houses are likely to be worth to causes that need the money, Children in need tonight just about puts it into context really!
What a waste of time and energy. This will gain nothing and nobody will ever get any money. I live near a road and cars keep driving past, does anyone want to join me in a group, lets go for it and see what we will get! ALL members of this stupid group should commit to give the EXTRA money that their houses are likely to be worth to causes that need the money, Children in need tonight just about puts it into context really! Thomo100

9:46pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Thomo100 wrote:
What a waste of time and energy. This will gain nothing and nobody will ever get any money.
I live near a road and cars keep driving past, does anyone want to join me in a group, lets go for it and see what we will get!
ALL members of this stupid group should commit to give the EXTRA money that their houses are likely to be worth to causes that need the money, Children in need tonight just about puts it into context really!
Thank you! Adds more weight to my own thoughts Thomo, and in the same vein as Charwen recently!
[quote][p][bold]Thomo100[/bold] wrote: What a waste of time and energy. This will gain nothing and nobody will ever get any money. I live near a road and cars keep driving past, does anyone want to join me in a group, lets go for it and see what we will get! ALL members of this stupid group should commit to give the EXTRA money that their houses are likely to be worth to causes that need the money, Children in need tonight just about puts it into context really![/p][/quote]Thank you! Adds more weight to my own thoughts Thomo, and in the same vein as Charwen recently! Olivia2847

11:15pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Max Impact says...

So this is all about the airport expanding and creating more jobs, people say their house has lost money so...

If a school expands and takes in more screaming brats with school run mums blocking the road and parking accross driveways, should the value of a house drop can we claim compo?

If a hospital expands and a house has a loss in value can they go for compo?
So this is all about the airport expanding and creating more jobs, people say their house has lost money so... If a school expands and takes in more screaming brats with school run mums blocking the road and parking accross driveways, should the value of a house drop can we claim compo? If a hospital expands and a house has a loss in value can they go for compo? Max Impact

8:59am Sat 17 Nov 12

tophatdt says...

Greed stops at nothing.
Greed stops at nothing. tophatdt

9:10pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.
Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?
[quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: Greed stops at nothing.[/p][/quote]Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt? Olivia2847

9:58pm Sat 17 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
......
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.[/p][/quote]...... sensiblelos

10:34pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
......
Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.[/p][/quote]......[/p][/quote]Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc ....., Olivia2847

9:28am Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
......
Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,
you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to....

When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl
y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.[/p][/quote]......[/p][/quote]Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,[/p][/quote]you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to.... When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided.... sensiblelos

10:09am Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Olivia2847 wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
......
Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,
you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to....

When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl

y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....
1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance.
2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what!

This is a roundabout! Why do correspondents keeping going back to talk about landowners, decision makers, tinker, tailor etc it is not going to change anything o 'sensible one of Leigh' is it? The decision to expand was made, I feel with the best intentions of the community as a whole by an elected forum of people who acted on our behalf - it they felt it was necessary, why did they not have a local referendum. I am not going to comment any more - I am becoming akin to Victor Meldrew ........
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.[/p][/quote]......[/p][/quote]Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,[/p][/quote]you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to.... When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....[/p][/quote]1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance. 2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what! This is a roundabout! Why do correspondents keeping going back to talk about landowners, decision makers, tinker, tailor etc it is not going to change anything o 'sensible one of Leigh' is it? The decision to expand was made, I feel with the best intentions of the community as a whole by an elected forum of people who acted on our behalf - it they felt it was necessary, why did they not have a local referendum. I am not going to comment any more - I am becoming akin to Victor Meldrew ........ Olivia2847

10:12am Sun 18 Nov 12

RichardAC says...

the answer to the last point is simple. There has been a public enquiry and Saen asked for a judicial review. Both those confirm the council did everything by the book and there was no case to answer. They considered and consulted with everyone and their dog. The whole planning process from start to finish is a template for how it should be done. In this case the council have been fantastic in considering the overall benefit to the town and not the minor inconvenience of the few. Stobart in addition are a brilliant company.
the answer to the last point is simple. There has been a public enquiry and Saen asked for a judicial review. Both those confirm the council did everything by the book and there was no case to answer. They considered and consulted with everyone and their dog. The whole planning process from start to finish is a template for how it should be done. In this case the council have been fantastic in considering the overall benefit to the town and not the minor inconvenience of the few. Stobart in addition are a brilliant company. RichardAC

10:47am Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Olivia2847 wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation.

What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why?

Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged?

Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council:

. When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not?

Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?
I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw.

So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council.

The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs.

The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill.

The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.
you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.
......
Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,
you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to....

When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl


y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....
1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance.
2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what!

This is a roundabout! Why do correspondents keeping going back to talk about landowners, decision makers, tinker, tailor etc it is not going to change anything o 'sensible one of Leigh' is it? The decision to expand was made, I feel with the best intentions of the community as a whole by an elected forum of people who acted on our behalf - it they felt it was necessary, why did they not have a local referendum. I am not going to comment any more - I am becoming akin to Victor Meldrew ........
When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important

...sorry you haven't answered the question as you cannot as you are a member of the public and not a decision maker evidently..you answer

1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance.
2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what!

1.you have made reference to a purchaser...the question is whether the landowner(the council as landowner) not a buyer has considered the expansion and property prices. you are assuming Solicitors have a view on property prices, this assumption is incorrect. You are also assuming that a conveyance(at any point in time) would show that there would be an expansion at any time in the future..again you incorrect.
2."So what"? yes i guess that is the general position of the decision makers they take the same attitude..the disadvantages have not been considered. i did not ask the question of any member of the public.....perhaps at one point in time those decision makers will answer the questions but i doubt it....

The questions have not been asked to try to change anything, the question is being asked of those decision makers. have they taken informed decisions on behalf of its disadvantaged residents? if if not why not. the electorate should now this...

the decision to expand was made, but evidently if the landowners cannot confirm what the disadvantages would be and they haven't considered the impact, the decision was made without knowing the facts and the impacts it would have on its disadvantaged residents...
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: those who have been financially disadvantaged have a legal right to claim compensation. What surprises me is that there is a belief that this is only an airport issue and it should be the Airport only who should pay compensation. Why? Is in not the case that the Landowner(the Council) financially benefits from the expansion. They did not have to agree to the expansion but they wanted to agree on behalf of the residents. If the Council benefits why is it not right that the Council should financially compensate those who have been disadvantaged? Those who have serious concerns(and there are many) have a right to ask questions of the Council, if the decisions have been made that financially disadvantage many residents. Those residents should ask the Council: . When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. It is the Councils responsibility as a landowner not just the airport owner to be a good neighbour. The Council has a duty to be a good neighbour, a good neighbour would consider the effect the expansion would have on those under the flight path has this been considered? If not why not? Those homeowners who have been financially disadvantaged have a right to ask the Council" why have you not considered the effects the expansion will have on property prices under the flight path"?[/p][/quote]I feel that I should remind you that whilst you are right in stating Southend Borough Council gave planning permission for the extension it was also approved by Central Government and the High Court with the rejection of the appeal for Judicial Review as applied for initially by LM and then by an unnamed member of SAEN who the High Court refused permission to be “parachuted” into LM’s shoes after she decided to withdraw. So therefore your statement that SBC should also be held accountable must also be extended to Central Government and the Judges that backed the approvals voted for and approved democratically by the duly elected councillors who sit upon Southend Borough Council. The appeals launched by LM/SAEN cosy Southend Borough Council £54,000 this money had to come out of general taxation of the residence of Southend, therefore it was the like of you and me that had to pay these charges, I was not asked by LM or SAEN if I was happy to pay these costs. The council had no choice but to fight that case had they not any and all future and past approvals and or rejections could have been called in by the inspectorate with the council picking up the bill for any planning applications that were overturned this would have resulted in a bill running in to £100,000’s possibly millions when compensation payments are figured into the final bill. The money paid out by the council defending itself money that HAD to be paid could have saved a job or two or been used to provide extra services, the council had acted wholly and fully in accordance with the planning laws, rules and regulations, this fact was proved as judge after judge backed Southend Borough Council in its actions relating to the approval.[/p][/quote]you are making reference to the Planning Authority and the planning consent , i have made no reference to the Planning Authority or planning consent in my quote.[/p][/quote]......[/p][/quote]Sensiblejos - you will slowly realise that in time all of this bells and whistles, bangs and smoke is simply **** in the wind! You can quote chapter and verse, line by line all the way back to the Magna Carta but as I keep trying to put across In my humble opinion, that those who feel disadvantaged may win the battle but not the war! How many times have people mentioned that if you live by a hospital, fire station, school or activity that in time by natural growth expands - of course it has repercussions for the people that live nearby but it WON'T GO AWAY! You mention benefits - indirectly we all benefit - jobs and all the external stakeholder factors which may not be apparent to all but do exist, even the milkman who now delivers more, the people recruited to make the in- flight meals, fuel suppliers, the franchisee in the terminal, Holiday Inn et al - is a BENEFIT including the council! They are an elected body - a joke as mentioned as when we voted for perhaps LIb Dem, we find that in fact they kow tow to the Tories and lose effectual control! Sago arts have ring fenced the airport in all its activities we are not David fighting Goliath we should be enjoying a symbiotic relationship to the good and benefit of all. Compensation - here we go again - if you bought a house, business, small holding, kennel, stable, monastery, shop you MUST have been aware that the sleeping giant near you in time would awake, yawn and become as in Etna active. Your solicitor or even common sense within you must have been aware that for example your existence in Marine Parade, Eastwoodbury Avenue or wherever would eventually lose an element of calm and peace. A jet goes over, sometimes often sometimes not. No louder in real terms as if you lived next door to a fire station or hospital or police station - here come the pantomime voices - oh not is is/isn't! Stobart have a rock solid, ring fenced, cute, aware and worldly wise legal team they negotiated with Southend BC in a week documented approach and bid to run the airport which they were granted. Inspectorates, Win no Fee Johnies, Quasi Legal Factions promising the earth - no! Forget the accountability sir, the die has been cast, envelope licked, door closed, window shut, gate whatever etc etc .....,[/p][/quote]you may have an opinion, but your post does not provide any answers to.... When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. you may or may not be aware that a good public neighbour should consider these questions before any development proceeds(unless of course the decision makers are not good neighbours), the questions are relevant and the answers to date i am unaware of, perhaps those decisions makers have the answers to the specific questions , however i see no evidence of that in any responses, posts or articles in the evening echo to date and i believe that those who have been disadvantaged have a right to know that the decision makers have considered the facts before imposing the expansion on them..as a resident i believe it is very important to establish that all the disadvantages(not just advantages) have been considered by the landowners before the decision was made to allow the expansion.....clearl y the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages but how do we (as disadvantaged residents) know that everything has been considered if no evidence ( the facts) have been provided....[/p][/quote]1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance. 2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what! This is a roundabout! Why do correspondents keeping going back to talk about landowners, decision makers, tinker, tailor etc it is not going to change anything o 'sensible one of Leigh' is it? The decision to expand was made, I feel with the best intentions of the community as a whole by an elected forum of people who acted on our behalf - it they felt it was necessary, why did they not have a local referendum. I am not going to comment any more - I am becoming akin to Victor Meldrew ........[/p][/quote]When considering the expansion did anyone consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important ...sorry you haven't answered the question as you cannot as you are a member of the public and not a decision maker evidently..you answer 1. Prices of property under the flight path - when buying it should have be realised by the solicitor in the conveyance. 2. It's a done deal Sir, basically - so what! 1.you have made reference to a purchaser...the question is whether the landowner(the council as landowner) not a buyer has considered the expansion and property prices. you are assuming Solicitors have a view on property prices, this assumption is incorrect. You are also assuming that a conveyance(at any point in time) would show that there would be an expansion at any time in the future..again you incorrect. 2."So what"? yes i guess that is the general position of the decision makers they take the same attitude..the disadvantages have not been considered. i did not ask the question of any member of the public.....perhaps at one point in time those decision makers will answer the questions but i doubt it.... The questions have not been asked to try to change anything, the question is being asked of those decision makers. have they taken informed decisions on behalf of its disadvantaged residents? if if not why not. the electorate should now this... the decision to expand was made, but evidently if the landowners cannot confirm what the disadvantages would be and they haven't considered the impact, the decision was made without knowing the facts and the impacts it would have on its disadvantaged residents... sensiblelos

10:50am Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

RichardAC wrote:
the answer to the last point is simple. There has been a public enquiry and Saen asked for a judicial review. Both those confirm the council did everything by the book and there was no case to answer. They considered and consulted with everyone and their dog. The whole planning process from start to finish is a template for how it should be done. In this case the council have been fantastic in considering the overall benefit to the town and not the minor inconvenience of the few. Stobart in addition are a brilliant company.
not so simple ....

you are making reference to the planning authority and the decisions of the planning authority, once again i note i have made no reference to the planning authority or its decision....
[quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: the answer to the last point is simple. There has been a public enquiry and Saen asked for a judicial review. Both those confirm the council did everything by the book and there was no case to answer. They considered and consulted with everyone and their dog. The whole planning process from start to finish is a template for how it should be done. In this case the council have been fantastic in considering the overall benefit to the town and not the minor inconvenience of the few. Stobart in addition are a brilliant company.[/p][/quote]not so simple .... you are making reference to the planning authority and the decisions of the planning authority, once again i note i have made no reference to the planning authority or its decision.... sensiblelos

11:35am Sun 18 Nov 12

RichardAC says...

I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Eveyone was consulted. It's too late to start complaining now.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Eveyone was consulted. It's too late to start complaining now. RichardAC

11:52am Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

RichardAC wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Eveyone was consulted. It's too late to start complaining now.
perhaps if i were able to underline and bold the text to the original question the emphasis within the question would be apparent. again...

When considering the expansion did anyone(the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?
- If this matter was considered what was the outcome?
-If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important.

the questions do not relate to the consultation.

A complaint could be justified if those who made the decision did so without knowing the facts.

I am sure that every disadvantaged resident wishes to know whether the decision makers have previously considered the impact of the expansion not just the advantages but disadvantages.. if the facts have not been obtained the decision should be questioned.
[quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry but I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Eveyone was consulted. It's too late to start complaining now.[/p][/quote]perhaps if i were able to underline and bold the text to the original question the emphasis within the question would be apparent. again... When considering the expansion did anyone(the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path? - If this matter was considered what was the outcome? -If this matter wasn't considered why not? who agreed that the potential financial disadvantage to many was not important. the questions do not relate to the consultation. A complaint could be justified if those who made the decision did so without knowing the facts. I am sure that every disadvantaged resident wishes to know whether the decision makers have previously considered the impact of the expansion not just the advantages but disadvantages.. if the facts have not been obtained the decision should be questioned. sensiblelos

12:32pm Sun 18 Nov 12

RichardAC says...

House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet. RichardAC

12:38pm Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
[quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question. sensiblelos

12:43pm Sun 18 Nov 12

RichardAC says...

Does anyone know what point Sensiblelos is trying to make because he's defeated me.
Does anyone know what point Sensiblelos is trying to make because he's defeated me. RichardAC

12:59pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

sensiblelos wrote:
RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
Thank you! This whole blog needs to be restarted with a more objective focus!
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.[/p][/quote]Thank you! This whole blog needs to be restarted with a more objective focus! Olivia2847

1:01pm Sun 18 Nov 12

tophatdt says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.
Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?
I was referring more to the legal and personal greed.
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: Greed stops at nothing.[/p][/quote]Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?[/p][/quote]I was referring more to the legal and personal greed. tophatdt

1:13pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

tophatdt wrote:
Olivia2847 wrote:
tophatdt wrote:
Greed stops at nothing.
Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?
I was referring more to the legal and personal greed.
Thank you Sir!

Right- lets all start again!

Put across in your own words your feelings about this topic in NO LESS than 110 words which means the rest of us can hopefully interpret these feelings (including mine) without all the superfluous ****!

tophatdt
sensiblelos
RichardAC
Joe Wildman
[quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tophatdt[/bold] wrote: Greed stops at nothing.[/p][/quote]Corporate, legal or personal greed - tophatdt?[/p][/quote]I was referring more to the legal and personal greed.[/p][/quote]Thank you Sir! Right- lets all start again! Put across in your own words your feelings about this topic in NO LESS than 110 words which means the rest of us can hopefully interpret these feelings (including mine) without all the superfluous ****! tophatdt sensiblelos RichardAC Joe Wildman Olivia2847

1:17pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

In trouble already, have had the Ships Cat, Andy Pandy, Bungle and Zippy on the blower already. Off to the Roslin Hotel for an anti Carvair protest - now THAT was noise my boy !! Ask for extra verb and gravy and just listen to Wayne in the kitchen explode - forget Boeing and Gordon Ramsey!
In trouble already, have had the Ships Cat, Andy Pandy, Bungle and Zippy on the blower already. Off to the Roslin Hotel for an anti Carvair protest - now THAT was noise my boy !! Ask for extra verb and gravy and just listen to Wayne in the kitchen explode - forget Boeing and Gordon Ramsey! Olivia2847

6:58pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Max Impact says...

sensiblelos wrote:
RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.[/p][/quote]You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant. How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome. I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations. Max Impact

7:34pm Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.
clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a
nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.[/p][/quote]You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant. How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome. I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.[/p][/quote]clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either. sensiblelos

8:20pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.
clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a

nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.
What is your point please o sensible one, because you have lost me completely! Your talking about planning and house prices in the same context I feel as trying to raise the Titanic and get her back working again - or is It just me .......
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.[/p][/quote]You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant. How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome. I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.[/p][/quote]clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.[/p][/quote]What is your point please o sensible one, because you have lost me completely! Your talking about planning and house prices in the same context I feel as trying to raise the Titanic and get her back working again - or is It just me ....... Olivia2847

8:35pm Sun 18 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
RichardAC wrote:
House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail.
I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.
you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.
You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant.

How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome.

I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.
clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a


nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.
What is your point please o sensible one, because you have lost me completely! Your talking about planning and house prices in the same context I feel as trying to raise the Titanic and get her back working again - or is It just me .......
please, please i did not ask the questions of the general public.and i did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website .. if you wish to have a one sided debate and respond to my posts and quote them please read the posts extremely carefully before doing so...
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: House prices fluctuate and TBH any price is subject to any amount of variables. The proximity of an airport might for example inflate house prices. I moved to central Leigh 35 years ago as it was the only house I could afford as no one seemed to want to live in Leigh at the time. We managed to negotiate 10% off the asking price as well. Westcliff prices were higher In fact we could not afford the house we wanted in Westclff. 35 years later my house is worth a fortune just because of where it is. Leigh is now fashionable. When I tell estate agents this they don't believe me. Living under the flight path of the Carvairs did not effect the house prices in the road I was born either. I live near the Grand now. When it is refurbished will my house be worth more or less? Who knows or TBH cares. The council have not factored this in to their planning consent and neither should they. It should be about planning and the good of the town overall. I think proving that house prices have fallen since the airport has been built is asking people to prove the impossible, which is why I think most of the actions if they go to court will fail. I get more noise from my wife drying her hair than with EasyJet.[/p][/quote]you have made reference once again to the planning consent i dont believe i need to repeat myself, if you intend to reference my post please carefully read the question.[/p][/quote]You do not want us to mention the planning consent but you are asking a question on if a procedure was under taken during the planning process the two are inevitably a symbiant. How can you talk about a task during the planning process and not mention the final outcome. I beleve discussing the potential loss of value to property is not legally part of the planning process that has to be undertaken, if it was EVERY planning application would have to carry out the same process even if you wanted to change your windows or build a shed with foundations.[/p][/quote]clearly i am not referring to the planning consent. where in any quote have i referred to a planning consent or application?.......a nd clearly i am not referring to loss of property prices in relation to the planning consent either.[/p][/quote]What is your point please o sensible one, because you have lost me completely! Your talking about planning and house prices in the same context I feel as trying to raise the Titanic and get her back working again - or is It just me .......[/p][/quote]please, please i did not ask the questions of the general public.and i did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website .. if you wish to have a one sided debate and respond to my posts and quote them please read the posts extremely carefully before doing so... sensiblelos

8:36pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

I don't understand what you are trying to say before I can comment ....
I don't understand what you are trying to say before I can comment .... Olivia2847

11:03pm Sun 18 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

sensiblelos:

You said:

"When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?"

So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process.


You then said:

“I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website”


You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it!
sensiblelos: You said: "When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?" So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process. You then said: “I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website” You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it! Joe Wildman

5:22am Mon 19 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos:

You said:

"When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?"

So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process.


You then said:

“I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website”


You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it!
Why a cant you both get to the point?
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: sensiblelos: You said: "When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?" So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process. You then said: “I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website” You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it![/p][/quote]Why a cant you both get to the point? Olivia2847

5:24am Mon 19 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos:

You said:

"When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?"

So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process.


You then said:

“I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website”


You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it!
Why a cant you both get to the point?
Excuse me! Why can't you both get to the point, now that the stable door is firmly shut, the horse bolted etc etc
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: sensiblelos: You said: "When considering the expansion did anyone (the decision maker) consider the effect the expansion would have on property prices under the flight path?" So surely the consideration would have taken place during the planning process which is what we have all been saying yet your keep denying you are talking about the planning process, whilst you might not have used the words planning and process, your still lumping your property prices consideration argument slap bang firmly in the middle of the planning process. You then said: “I did not ask the questions of the general public and I did not intend to debate the questions with those on this website” You did ask the general public as you posted on this forum and you did open yourself up to a debate with those on this website as you posted your questions on it![/p][/quote]Why a cant you both get to the point?[/p][/quote]Excuse me! Why can't you both get to the point, now that the stable door is firmly shut, the horse bolted etc etc Olivia2847

8:13am Mon 19 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process. Joe Wildman

12:30pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow!
A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow! Olivia2847

3:51pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow!
Old habits die hard, spent years as a contracts negotiator and company spokesperson. waffling on is one of the things I had to do, baffle them with a long winded speech and they would sign the contract just to shut me up!

Same rules for writing a contract, the longer it is people start to skim over it and just sign on the dotted line.
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow![/p][/quote]Old habits die hard, spent years as a contracts negotiator and company spokesperson. waffling on is one of the things I had to do, baffle them with a long winded speech and they would sign the contract just to shut me up! Same rules for writing a contract, the longer it is people start to skim over it and just sign on the dotted line. Joe Wildman

4:00pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia2847 wrote:
A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow!
Old habits die hard, spent years as a contracts negotiator and company spokesperson. waffling on is one of the things I had to do, baffle them with a long winded speech and they would sign the contract just to shut me up!

Same rules for writing a contract, the longer it is people start to skim over it and just sign on the dotted line.
Joe, sincere thanks for your honesty! Now where we're we !!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: A point you have succinctly made in 46 words instead of all verbose and undecipherable waffle earlier - take that as a compliment! It would therefore seem impossible to seek redress in hindsight for loss of property value as as DC mentions in the broadsheet press today this is an avenue that will slowly narrow![/p][/quote]Old habits die hard, spent years as a contracts negotiator and company spokesperson. waffling on is one of the things I had to do, baffle them with a long winded speech and they would sign the contract just to shut me up! Same rules for writing a contract, the longer it is people start to skim over it and just sign on the dotted line.[/p][/quote]Joe, sincere thanks for your honesty! Now where we're we !! Olivia2847

6:29pm Mon 19 Nov 12

sensiblelos says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.[/p][/quote]Would it really?are you really clear on the position? not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices. your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case) sensiblelos

7:06pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)
Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH
HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?
[quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.[/p][/quote]Would it really?are you really clear on the position? not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices. your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)[/p][/quote]Right sensible and calm hat is off. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH HHHHH You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you. I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red . So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval? Joe Wildman

8:13am Tue 20 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)
Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH

HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?
Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure!
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.[/p][/quote]Would it really?are you really clear on the position? not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices. your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)[/p][/quote]Right sensible and calm hat is off. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH HHHHH You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you. I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red . So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?[/p][/quote]Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure! Olivia2847

3:33pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Olivia2847 wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)
Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH


HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?
Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure!
.pool ytilasuac laropmet a ni kcuts be ot smees eH

.ti fo edis gninnalp eht etabed ot knalb tniop sesufer tey, ekam ot gniyrt si solelbisnes tniop tahw tuo ot gniyrt struh niarb yM


He seems to be stuck in a temporal causality loop.

My brain hurts trying to work out what point sensiblelos is trying to make, yet refuses point blank to debate the planning side of it.
[quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.[/p][/quote]Would it really?are you really clear on the position? not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices. your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)[/p][/quote]Right sensible and calm hat is off. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH HHHHH You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you. I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red . So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?[/p][/quote]Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure![/p][/quote].pool ytilasuac laropmet a ni kcuts be ot smees eH .ti fo edis gninnalp eht etabed ot knalb tniop sesufer tey, ekam ot gniyrt si solelbisnes tniop tahw tuo ot gniyrt struh niarb yM He seems to be stuck in a temporal causality loop. My brain hurts trying to work out what point sensiblelos is trying to make, yet refuses point blank to debate the planning side of it. Joe Wildman

7:01pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia2847 wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
sensiblelos wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.
Would it really?are you really clear on the position?

not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices.

your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)
Right sensible and calm hat is off.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH



HHHHH


You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you.

I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red .

So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?
Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure!
.pool ytilasuac laropmet a ni kcuts be ot smees eH

.ti fo edis gninnalp eht etabed ot knalb tniop sesufer tey, ekam ot gniyrt si solelbisnes tniop tahw tuo ot gniyrt struh niarb yM


He seems to be stuck in a temporal causality loop.

My brain hurts trying to work out what point sensiblelos is trying to make, yet refuses point blank to debate the planning side of it.
And I thought it was just me trying to decipher all the waffle .......
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Olivia2847[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sensiblelos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Olivia: Please point out where I have not "got to the point" Throughout each of my comments I have always made it clear that any investigation in to the possible loss of property value prior to the planning approval would have formed part of the planning process.[/p][/quote]Would it really?are you really clear on the position? not that i would wish to enter into any debate on the planning process with you or any other person on this forum as i have made no reference to planning in any post previously, but i feel that you need to be told that you are factually incorrect in your comment. A planning process(up to the date of consent in this case ) does not in any way consider property prices. your point may have been made in 46 words however what you say is clearly wrong.( (a lot less) is certainly more in this case)[/p][/quote]Right sensible and calm hat is off. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHH HHHHH You keep going on about was property value and if there was an investigation to see if the appoval would have had any effect on prices before the application was approved, why don't you ask the council, it's not up to us to find out for you. I don't care if the planning process consider property prices, why should it, if you bring such a regulation in EVERY planning aplication would be bogged down in red . So why do you not want to discuss/debate anything on the planning process with any other person on this forum, you might not have mentioned the subject but what is the reason why you will not debate the planning approval?[/p][/quote]Confused, just having a quick peak to try and interpret all the indecipherable **** being written here along with others I'm sure![/p][/quote].pool ytilasuac laropmet a ni kcuts be ot smees eH .ti fo edis gninnalp eht etabed ot knalb tniop sesufer tey, ekam ot gniyrt si solelbisnes tniop tahw tuo ot gniyrt struh niarb yM He seems to be stuck in a temporal causality loop. My brain hurts trying to work out what point sensiblelos is trying to make, yet refuses point blank to debate the planning side of it.[/p][/quote]And I thought it was just me trying to decipher all the waffle ....... Olivia2847

7:25pm Tue 20 Nov 12

Joe Wildman says...

Nope.

Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.
Nope. Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself. Joe Wildman

11:16am Wed 21 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
Nope.

Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.
Now totally off the primary topic as in homeowners feeling hard done by a process that is now a done deal. Rather like the Trojan Horse being turned away from the gates because it didn't have a licence ....
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Nope. Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.[/p][/quote]Now totally off the primary topic as in homeowners feeling hard done by a process that is now a done deal. Rather like the Trojan Horse being turned away from the gates because it didn't have a licence .... Olivia2847

11:16am Wed 21 Nov 12

Olivia2847 says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
Nope.

Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.
Now totally off the primary topic as in homeowners feeling hard done by a process that is now a done deal. Rather like the Trojan Horse being turned away from the gates because it didn't have a licence ....
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: Nope. Not just you and me, but virtually everybody on here apart from the man himself.[/p][/quote]Now totally off the primary topic as in homeowners feeling hard done by a process that is now a done deal. Rather like the Trojan Horse being turned away from the gates because it didn't have a licence .... Olivia2847

11:28pm Thu 29 Nov 12

Southend65 says...

Time for a really silly question....

In order to reduce the noise footprint, why don't planes always approach the airport from the north east (Burnham on Crouch) and depart using the same route?

Thanks in advance.
Time for a really silly question.... In order to reduce the noise footprint, why don't planes always approach the airport from the north east (Burnham on Crouch) and depart using the same route? Thanks in advance. Southend65

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