Airport valet parking firm kicked out of base (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Airport valet parking firm kicked out of base
8:00am Tuesday 15th January 2013 in Local News
A PRIVATE firm offering valet parking for Southend Airport passengers has been told it will be kicked out of its base by council chiefs.
Southend Airport Car Park, which only got off the ground in April 2012, has been given three months to move on after failing to secure planning permission.
Southend Council ruled the firm should not be allowed to use a former development site on the Temple Farm industrial estate as its base because the airport already offered enough parking spaces.
But the fledgling company, which employs ten people, has vowed to fight for its future.
Lorraine Larman, financial director, said: “We will appeal this decision and we believe we have a good case.
“To say the airport already has enough spaces is basically saying no one has a right to compete.
“We are creating jobs and surely some jobs are better than none?”
Southend Airport has three long-stay car parks and a short-stay option, with more than 1,000 spaces available.
SACP has 80 spaces in its base off Coopers Way. The company, which originally operated from a base in Progress Road, Southend, moved to its current site last summer to cope with the growing demand.
But council chiefs pointed out the land was not included in the airport’s own transport strategy, which was agreed when it embarked on its £100million expansion programme in 2010.
They also claimed the permanent conversion of an industrial estate site into a commercial car park would lead to a loss of employment land.
Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers.
“We have plenty of space, free set down and pick up, a choice of short and long stay, roll up or pre-book and great offers, such as our free parking offer for January and February.
“There are no off-airport operators endorsed or approved by us, as we feel the airport can offer the most competitive deals for its passengers - therefore we would strongly urge passengers to compare any off site rates with what we can offer before booking.”
Comments(64)
j-w
says...
8:53am Tue 15 Jan 13
This is disgusting.
What parking is provided by the airport is irrelevant, locals should be able to piggy back businesses on the airports success.
As for loss of "employment land" Mr Holdcroft and other council chiefs should get off their backsides and see how many empty units there are on the many industrial estates in Southend.
The airport Should remember it is an airport with attached (expensive) parking not a car park with attached airport. Good luck with your appeals.
What parking is provided by the airport is irrelevant, locals should be able to piggy back businesses on the airports success.
As for loss of "employment land" Mr Holdcroft and other council chiefs should get off their backsides and see how many empty units there are on the many industrial estates in Southend.
The airport Should remember it is an airport with attached (expensive) parking not a car park with attached airport. Good luck with your appeals.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
8:56am Tue 15 Jan 13
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Max Impact
says...
8:58am Tue 15 Jan 13
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
j-w
says...
9:07am Tue 15 Jan 13
Planning should be stuck too but using a silly reason to not give planning permission such as loss of employment land does not cut it and I am starting to think that maybe the airport and council are too tightly tied.
I am a very strong supporter of the airport as my posts will show but I am not a complete blinkered fool like you appear to be with all thing airport and council related Max, even I cringe at some of your comments and tend to ignore most of them. A car park on an industrial estate with just a few houses nearby is not a problem for anyone.
I am a very strong supporter of the airport as my posts will show but I am not a complete blinkered fool like you appear to be with all thing airport and council related Max, even I cringe at some of your comments and tend to ignore most of them. A car park on an industrial estate with just a few houses nearby is not a problem for anyone.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:09am Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
artytoit
says...
9:11am Tue 15 Jan 13
The council will kick them out and probably make it a money-making car park for themselves!
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:13am Tue 15 Jan 13
Actually I wonder if Southend council are in breech of planning conditions?
That car park where the market used to be was built as a temporary site. I do hope the council has the correct planning permissions to use it as a permanent car park, as they have done for the last three years.
That car park where the market used to be was built as a temporary site. I do hope the council has the correct planning permissions to use it as a permanent car park, as they have done for the last three years.
j-w
says...
9:28am Tue 15 Jan 13
can't find anything on that.
http://planning.sout
hend.gov.uk/PublicAc
cess/propdb/property
/property_detailview
.aspx?module=P3&keyv
al=MBKM0PPA03900&pro
pno=010090458822
http://planning.sout
hend.gov.uk/PublicAc
cess/propdb/property
/property_detailview
.aspx?module=P3&keyv
al=MBKM0PPA03900&pro
pno=010090458822
Carnabackable
says...
9:37am Tue 15 Jan 13
Good job too, we don't want to see the local mob cashing in on the valiant efforts of Stobbart.
Like the early airshows, when you had frank's burgers on sale - for a nice little earner, they were kicked out, as it was realised, that professionals had to be taken on to provide an accountable service.
Likewise the eastern European staffed valeting brigade, should stick to waste lands, supermarkets and stay out from corporate business.
Like the early airshows, when you had frank's burgers on sale - for a nice little earner, they were kicked out, as it was realised, that professionals had to be taken on to provide an accountable service.
Likewise the eastern European staffed valeting brigade, should stick to waste lands, supermarkets and stay out from corporate business.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
9:38am Tue 15 Jan 13
Interesting. Here's the original story:
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/8626466.
Former_market_site_t
o_become_temporary_C
hristmas_car_park/
http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/8626466.
Former_market_site_t
o_become_temporary_C
hristmas_car_park/
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
9:39am Tue 15 Jan 13
The whole thing does stink a bit.
maybe the parking company will find another better location.
maybe the parking company will find another better location.
j-w
says...
9:40am Tue 15 Jan 13
Some good comments on that story!
Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd
says...
10:23am Tue 15 Jan 13
"They (SBC) also claimed the permanent conversion of an industrial estate site into a commercial car park would lead to a loss of employment land."...
But this land already employs 10 people???????
.
More proof (if needed) that Southend Council really dont have the boroughs best interests at heart.
.
Also, as pointed out in comments above SBC mustve hoped we'd all forget about York Road Market!
.
Another day another SBC fail.
But this land already employs 10 people???????
.
More proof (if needed) that Southend Council really dont have the boroughs best interests at heart.
.
Also, as pointed out in comments above SBC mustve hoped we'd all forget about York Road Market!
.
Another day another SBC fail.
Eric Whim
says...
10:36am Tue 15 Jan 13
this valet parking firm obviously not bunging enough trays of pies and crates of ale the council's way
Max Impact
says...
10:49am Tue 15 Jan 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
jayman
says...
11:09am Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
j-w
says...
11:17am Tue 15 Jan 13
I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Jayman (probably on this point only).
The guy at the end of Eastwoodbury Lane also failed to get permission for a competing car park.
The guy at the end of Eastwoodbury Lane also failed to get permission for a competing car park.
Max Impact
says...
11:31am Tue 15 Jan 13
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
jayman
says...
12:03pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
12:22pm Tue 15 Jan 13
jayman wrote:Maxy-waxy's strawman doesn't stand up at all.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
He uses an example of chemical waste plant in a residential area.
The story is about parked cars standing still creating no pollution on an industrial estate.
maxell
says...
2:00pm Tue 15 Jan 13
I see once again that SBC RDC have been told what to do by the stobart gods, this company is run by dictators we need to get this spinless council replaced, before southend is renamed *stobart on sea" and our homes sold out beneath our feet. The a 127 will be the next thing to be privitised. Soon exclusive for stobart traffic and £10 per mile to anybody else
maxell
says...
2:57pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:hey lets get some facts straight here you advocate that planning laws should not be ignored, "I agree" and if it were you that built something without conforming to the rules set out the councils would more than likly make and example out of you but that should be the case across the board the airport as many know have put in for an extention terminal (and also 3rd application to further increase the terminal size before ths 2nd is built), They should carry out surveys IE:pre development enquiry that should be submitted with the application with regard to sewage this was not carried out yet the planning app was still passed, it clearly states in the application conditions (12/103/ful ) sec 2/10 that know works should be started utill a workable plan had been agreed this work started six weeks before it was approved and under flood lights at night and the councils even though alerted to this fact did sweet Fa , the councils are once again dictated to by the airport, obviously the airport needed to be on schedule so showed disregard for any council ruling, even though the condition stated otherwise,the airport knows that cash strapped councils will never take them to court to enforce anything they want, so I agree in principal of what you are trying to say but this must be extended out to include anybody that breeches planning conditions,and reported acordinly
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
sosad 1
says...
3:05pm Tue 15 Jan 13
silly firm this car park lot you have not greased the palms of sbc or the airport
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
3:39pm Tue 15 Jan 13
As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first.
Broadwaywatch
says...
4:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13
notinwestcliffanymorNot just over the SBC but possibly over the Essex County Council as well......as time will tell over the Airports application to close/divert yet another footpath. This time the loss of an ancient footpath, footpath 36 from Eastwood to Rochford. A footpath which has been there long before the airport built a taxiway across it back in the early sixties. However, the airport back then also painted a zebra crossing on the tarmac so that the footpath could continue un-obstructed and un-obstructed it has remained until now. Now the owners of the airport are intent in closing this most often quiet rural walk and diverting it onto a busy main road. The reason they say is because of security . It seems strange that it's taken them all this time to come to this conclusion. However, if this is truly the reason then I propose that such a problem could easily be solved with an electronic gate with a camera either side of the taxiway where it crosses the footpath. I believe it to be a logical, and community minded solution to such a said problem and be possibly cheaper for the Airport than redirecting the footpath which they say they will pay for. However, we will see just how much those Airport owners care for any one or anything but themselves.
e wrote:
As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first.
J_blond
says...
5:37pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please?
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used
It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
J_blond
says...
5:39pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Oh and Echo, may I also add that the headline is very mis-representative? They haven't been kicked out yet.
So in effect this story could lead people to think that they have already gone, when the reality is they have three months and a fight.
Perhaps - Airport valet parking firm given three-months to close - would have been better? Then again, if one man complaining about buses refusing to accept his free bus pass is an eruption of a row...
So in effect this story could lead people to think that they have already gone, when the reality is they have three months and a fight.
Perhaps - Airport valet parking firm given three-months to close - would have been better? Then again, if one man complaining about buses refusing to accept his free bus pass is an eruption of a row...
Max Impact
says...
6:56pm Tue 15 Jan 13
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
mikepaterson
says...
7:02pm Tue 15 Jan 13
I have used this service. It suited my requirements and wallet better than that offered by the airport. Rather than trying to hound this company, the council should be looking at how to help them provide this great service whilstt in full compliance with the planning laws and the available appropriate land for storing cars.
The Southend Airport spokesman is saying what he is saying because he works for the Airport and so is obviously spouting the company line.
When he states: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers. I guess he means that they work hard with the council to protect their monopoly and to remove the competition which is providing something different (choice) and does provide great value.
The Southend Airport spokesman is saying what he is saying because he works for the Airport and so is obviously spouting the company line.
When he states: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers. I guess he means that they work hard with the council to protect their monopoly and to remove the competition which is providing something different (choice) and does provide great value.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:16pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:It still does not compare. The business in the story is on an industrial estate, not in a residential area.
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
Shoebury_Cyclist
says...
7:20pm Tue 15 Jan 13
J_blond wrote:Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please?
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used
It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business.
It isn't hard to see the link.
halojump
says...
7:23pm Tue 15 Jan 13
few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site)
They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.
They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.
Broadwaywatch
says...
7:25pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
Max Impact
says...
8:23pm Tue 15 Jan 13
halojump wrote:That's intresting to know.
few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site)
They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.
Max Impact
says...
8:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Broadwaywatch wrote:There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.
Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.
I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
halojump
says...
8:53pm Tue 15 Jan 13
also what seems strange is Lorraine Larman isnt listed as a director of southend airport car parks but her son and daughter are. Not all as it seems with this company if my previous dealings with drive and go have anything to go by.
jayman
says...
9:00pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.
Broadwaywatch wrote:There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.
Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.
I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.
I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
halojump
says...
9:14pm Tue 15 Jan 13
jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section
Broadwaywatch
says...
9:55pm Tue 15 Jan 13
jayman wrote:Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
Max Impact wrote:nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.
Broadwaywatch wrote:There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.
Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.
I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.
I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
jayman
says...
10:26pm Tue 15 Jan 13
halojump wrote:very exotic.
jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section
I can only guess that you where a 'pathfinder'
halojump
says...
10:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13
there is always a possablity
Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that.
what was your trade?
Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that.
what was your trade?
jayman
says...
10:51pm Tue 15 Jan 13
halojump wrote:I wasn't a trade and I didn't serve in Belfast though I did fly in through Belfast once. i never did find the door that should have had 'smith air' on it as per my joining instructions. im lucky I didn't ask for a black cab to take me there.
there is always a possablity
Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that.
what was your trade?
lol.
halojump
says...
10:55pm Tue 15 Jan 13
smith air good old luton airport lads trying not to look like a soldier with a bergen
jayman
says...
11:07pm Tue 15 Jan 13
on patrol with a VJ going mental because the traffic lights where changing colour or changing a ton of antler battery down may street or stuck in sangar six looking out as my will to live left my body.
happiest days of my life
lol
happiest days of my life
lol
Max Impact
says...
11:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13
Broadwaywatch wrote:I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars!
jayman wrote:Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
Max Impact wrote:nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.
Broadwaywatch wrote:There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.
Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.
I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.
I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start.
Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind.
Democrat
says...
7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
Democrat
says...
7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
Democrat
says...
7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
Democrat
says...
7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
Democrat
says...
7:51am Wed 16 Jan 13
Democrat wrote:Blimey! I only pressed 'submit' once and three copies go out. Sorry. Unintended.
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
rodgdodge
says...
8:58am Wed 16 Jan 13
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
jayman
says...
9:38am Wed 16 Jan 13
rodgdodge wrote:I question your use of the word 'hard working'
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
what are you implying,
personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.
Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
J_blond
says...
10:40am Wed 16 Jan 13
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:That's not a link, that's a coincidence. Unless you can prove a link, it's not obviously a collaboration on the part of both.
J_blond wrote:Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business. Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business. It isn't hard to see the link.Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
Max Impact
says...
4:01pm Wed 16 Jan 13
jayman wrote:But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout.
rodgdodge wrote:I question your use of the word 'hard working'
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
what are you implying,
personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.
Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste.
jayman
says...
5:00pm Wed 16 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:what are you on about now.
jayman wrote:But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout.
rodgdodge wrote:I question your use of the word 'hard working'
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
what are you implying,
personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.
Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste.
I was not referring to 'running an airport'
I was drawing issue to the term 'hard working' as if its the preserve of 'suits' and 'abstract sector workers'
Nebs
says...
6:24pm Wed 16 Jan 13
jayman wrote:Many manual labourers travel abroad to work. Many in such noble professions as drug counselling sit behind a desk all day writing reports and producing spreadsheets full of statistics. It takes all sorts to make a world.
rodgdodge wrote:I question your use of the word 'hard working'
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."
The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""
Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
what are you implying,
personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.
Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
Broadwaywatch
says...
6:42pm Wed 16 Jan 13
Max Impact wrote:Thats all very interesting Max...thankyou and to be quite honest I myself am a bit of a hoarder but not to the extreme you purport to be however you did'nt answer my question as to why you come across of being against all those who are in rented property; after all you claim you yourself rent out property. I can't believe that you purposely avoided my question. I am inclined to think that you became so engrossed in the details of your hoarding that you forgot. So might I be so bold as to ask again 'what is it you have against those of our and others communities that rent their homes instead of having ownership'?
Broadwaywatch wrote:I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars!
jayman wrote:Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
Max Impact wrote:nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.
Broadwaywatch wrote:There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.
Max Impact wrote:What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
jayman wrote:Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.
Max Impact wrote:yes I do and scum they are.
jayman wrote:So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.
Max Impact wrote:retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?
Max Impact wrote:You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.
Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.
The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.
Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
If no is it legal or illegal?
An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.
no.
what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'
and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.
then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?
As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.
Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.
I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.
I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start.
Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind.
notinwestcliffanymore
says...
4:41pm Thu 17 Jan 13
Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
jayman
says...
10:07am Fri 18 Jan 13
notinwestcliffanymorWell, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
e wrote:
Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
halojump
says...
9:26pm Fri 18 Jan 13
jayman wrote:speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time.
notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame.
Max Impact
says...
11:07pm Fri 18 Jan 13
halojump wrote:If you think the RAF aircraft are bad try some of the smaller african country aircraft
jayman wrote:speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time.
notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame.
Went up in a cargo DC3, they were clearing moss off the aircraft as we walked out, we got on board and saw fuel drums nothing strange there as they fly fuel to remote places so thought nothing more of it until mid flight when they started to pump fuel from the drums to the fuel tanks in the wings!
Apparently the aircraft had not flown for two years before we hired it.
Alan Jacobs
says...
10:50am Sun 20 Jan 13
Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport.
Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid.
I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.
Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid.
I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.
Max Impact
says...
3:13pm Mon 21 Jan 13
Alan Jacobs wrote:I have reported you to the echo, the council and the airport fir the comment you have made.
Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport.
Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid.
I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.
Shoebury_Cyclist says...
8:52am Tue 15 Jan 13