Legal challenge to Southend Airport plan dismissed

4:17pm Thursday 3rd February 2011 in Southend By John Geoghegan

THE LEGAL challenge to Southend Airport’s runway extension has been thrown out.

The judicial review application by a campaigner against the runway extension plans was dismissed by a High Court judge this week, it was confirmed today.

Both the airport and campaigners Stop Airport Extension Now said they had received confirmation from the court about the judge’s decision.

It means plans to extend the runway by about 300m to accommodate bigger, more modern aircraft, are ready for take-off, bar a council agreement on the airport lease.

*FULL STORY AND REACTION IN TOMORROW'S ECHO

Related links

Comments (137)

4:27pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Well done SBC

Well done Stobarts

Well done Judge
YAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Well done SBC Well done Stobarts Well done Judge Rick Jones

4:28pm Thu 3 Feb 11

r6keith says...

Well done judge im glad you did not let someone waste our money fighting against something the majority of people want to happen...........and defending the review with our money as well..........Southe
nd welcome to the future...........
Well done judge im glad you did not let someone waste our money fighting against something the majority of people want to happen...........and defending the review with our money as well..........Southe nd welcome to the future........... r6keith

4:37pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

Lets just hope that the council now back the airport again at the next council/airport meeting over the change of use of land.

I think one party (you know who) will abstain or vote no.
Lets just hope that the council now back the airport again at the next council/airport meeting over the change of use of land. I think one party (you know who) will abstain or vote no. Rick Jones

4:38pm Thu 3 Feb 11

paintlad says...

Hear Hear, Great News!!!!
Hear Hear, Great News!!!! paintlad

4:53pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jolllyboy says...

Now is the time for the council to keep to their word and have night flights reduced and go out over Rochford. perhaps they could also control where the planes turn too, as some under the flight path have the planes turn whilst climbing and that is what causes the most noise and it is unnecessary.
Now is the time for the council to keep to their word and have night flights reduced and go out over Rochford. perhaps they could also control where the planes turn too, as some under the flight path have the planes turn whilst climbing and that is what causes the most noise and it is unnecessary. jolllyboy

4:55pm Thu 3 Feb 11

bentleycoon says...

Excellent! Bring on the flights, Ireland is a good start but Southend airport can do so much more, especially with the olympics approaching and the bigger London airports hiking up their charges.
Excellent! Bring on the flights, Ireland is a good start but Southend airport can do so much more, especially with the olympics approaching and the bigger London airports hiking up their charges. bentleycoon

5:05pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Norfolk says...

This is wonderful news and will enable the airport to become the major driver for the whole town's greater prosperity that is has for so long not had the opportunity.
As far as SAEN are concerned, I will say only that their distortions and deliberate misinformation impressed nobody but their own dwindling band of supporters. The Judge obviously recognised their bluff and bluster for exactly what it was and dismissed all four of their arguments as having no substance.
Along with many of the airport's supporters I have tried all along to be fair and to respect, and respond to, the opinions of those who genuinely were concerned at the runway extension proposals. SAEN respected nobody and showed scant regard for the truth and consistently refused to correct any factual errors that were politely pointed out to them.
This outcome is exactly what they deserve.
This is wonderful news and will enable the airport to become the major driver for the whole town's greater prosperity that is has for so long not had the opportunity. As far as SAEN are concerned, I will say only that their distortions and deliberate misinformation impressed nobody but their own dwindling band of supporters. The Judge obviously recognised their bluff and bluster for exactly what it was and dismissed all four of their arguments as having no substance. Along with many of the airport's supporters I have tried all along to be fair and to respect, and respond to, the opinions of those who genuinely were concerned at the runway extension proposals. SAEN respected nobody and showed scant regard for the truth and consistently refused to correct any factual errors that were politely pointed out to them. This outcome is exactly what they deserve. Norfolk

5:20pm Thu 3 Feb 11

colinpickett says...

Wonderful, Wonderful POSITIVE news for this whole area. Now let all the sad, demented, living in the past tossers all go and FaFaFaFaFa fade away _ FOR GOODDD
Wonderful, Wonderful POSITIVE news for this whole area. Now let all the sad, demented, living in the past tossers all go and FaFaFaFaFa fade away _ FOR GOODDD colinpickett

5:21pm Thu 3 Feb 11

el caballero de la noche says...

Lets now go for it big time !!

Private enterprise shows the way AND guess what all you Knockers if it don't make profits we the Tax payer will not have to bail it out like we do everything else owned by the state.
Lets now go for it big time !! Private enterprise shows the way AND guess what all you Knockers if it don't make profits we the Tax payer will not have to bail it out like we do everything else owned by the state. el caballero de la noche

5:24pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

The member of SAEN has seven days to ask for an apeal, if granted there is a 20min verbal hearing after which a judge will say yes or no to a full apeal if its a no they have yet another chance to apeal, anud guess what they STILL have legal aid.

Bad news from Wickford a light aircraft has crashed.
The member of SAEN has seven days to ask for an apeal, if granted there is a 20min verbal hearing after which a judge will say yes or no to a full apeal if its a no they have yet another chance to apeal, anud guess what they STILL have legal aid. Bad news from Wickford a light aircraft has crashed. Rick Jones

5:40pm Thu 3 Feb 11

tophatdt says...

Very good but sensible decision. At last Stobarts can continue with the project and turn our airport into a smart regional airport.
Very good but sensible decision. At last Stobarts can continue with the project and turn our airport into a smart regional airport. tophatdt

5:44pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jayman says...

fire up the Sopwith Camel and start polishing the metaphorical turd. its time to fly from rochford airport.. oh sorry, london southend airport. polish harder!
fire up the Sopwith Camel and start polishing the metaphorical turd. its time to fly from rochford airport.. oh sorry, london southend airport. polish harder! jayman

6:14pm Thu 3 Feb 11

APR says...

I don't think anyone is really surprised by this decision ?
I don't think anyone is really surprised by this decision ? APR

6:22pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

APR wrote:
I don't think anyone is really surprised by this decision ?
I was, the time it was taking to go through was becoming a bit touch and go, sadly the door was left open for an apeal, so more tax payers and council tax payer money wasted on an apeal and possibly high court apeal.

The SAEN member (who is still not being nammed WHY not?) should have been stripped of the leagl aid and told to fight any further action by paying for it themselfs.
[quote][p][bold]APR[/bold] wrote: I don't think anyone is really surprised by this decision ?[/p][/quote]I was, the time it was taking to go through was becoming a bit touch and go, sadly the door was left open for an apeal, so more tax payers and council tax payer money wasted on an apeal and possibly high court apeal. The SAEN member (who is still not being nammed WHY not?) should have been stripped of the leagl aid and told to fight any further action by paying for it themselfs. Rick Jones

6:32pm Thu 3 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out.
An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse.
And yet they still want to appeal.

Remind me why business would invest in this country?
.....
Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area.
.....
Well done SBC and Stobart Group!
......
Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic.
And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :)
So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out. An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse. And yet they still want to appeal. Remind me why business would invest in this country? ..... Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area. ..... Well done SBC and Stobart Group! ...... Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic. And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :) BASILBRUSH

7:02pm Thu 3 Feb 11

juneantom says...

,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it
,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it juneantom

7:17pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Walt Jabsco says...

juneantom wrote:
,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it
I take it you don't use air travel to go on holiday then - It's ok if it's over someone elses town is it?
[quote][p][bold]juneantom[/bold] wrote: ,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it[/p][/quote]I take it you don't use air travel to go on holiday then - It's ok if it's over someone elses town is it? Walt Jabsco

7:33pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out.
An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse.
And yet they still want to appeal.

Remind me why business would invest in this country?
.....
Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area.
.....
Well done SBC and Stobart Group!
......
Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic.
And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :)
hmm, fantastic. it looks pretty much like a generic airport carrying a promise of prosperity and wealth for the residents of Southend. however no one can deliver on such a pledge and the wealth wont be going to Joe blogs of southend avenue will it. it will go to council coffers and the Stobart group in return for noise and pollution. BUT! before you start with the usual my point isn't environmental, its economic. and the fact that the people of Southend are being fed the same crock of shittt from the same bloody council. "it will bring jobs" they say. yes but i don't see 50 air traffic controllers or mechanics ect, sitting outside the job centre with nothing to do.. no they will come in from outside areas so the benefit to the local residents will be to the ones that are not here yet.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out. An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse. And yet they still want to appeal. Remind me why business would invest in this country? ..... Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area. ..... Well done SBC and Stobart Group! ...... Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic. And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :)[/p][/quote]hmm, fantastic. it looks pretty much like a generic airport carrying a promise of prosperity and wealth for the residents of Southend. however no one can deliver on such a pledge and the wealth wont be going to Joe blogs of southend avenue will it. it will go to council coffers and the Stobart group in return for noise and pollution. BUT! before you start with the usual my point isn't environmental, its economic. and the fact that the people of Southend are being fed the same crock of shittt from the same bloody council. "it will bring jobs" they say. yes but i don't see 50 air traffic controllers or mechanics ect, sitting outside the job centre with nothing to do.. no they will come in from outside areas so the benefit to the local residents will be to the ones that are not here yet. jayman

7:35pm Thu 3 Feb 11

RobertFS says...

At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed.
Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably.
The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies. RobertFS

7:52pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

RobertFS wrote:
At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
OMG

So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust.

Shame the rest cant remembe rit.
[quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.[/p][/quote]OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit. Rick Jones

7:54pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

Walt Jabsco wrote:
juneantom wrote: ,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it
I take it you don't use air travel to go on holiday then - It's ok if it's over someone elses town is it?
Well said, you will find most against the airport have flown and still do, its ok for them to fly over somebodys house but as soon as somebody wants to do it to them its NO NO NO.

There are words for people like that hypocrite.
[quote][p][bold]Walt Jabsco[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]juneantom[/bold] wrote: ,,the airport is large enough as it is now,leave it like it is,,i dont want planes flying over southend at all hours of the day,,,im very much against it[/p][/quote]I take it you don't use air travel to go on holiday then - It's ok if it's over someone elses town is it?[/p][/quote]Well said, you will find most against the airport have flown and still do, its ok for them to fly over somebodys house but as soon as somebody wants to do it to them its NO NO NO. There are words for people like that hypocrite. Rick Jones

8:02pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jayman says...

RobertFS wrote:
At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed.
Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably.
The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
A bit off topic but there is no current main party that knows what to do. Labour made a mess getting in to debt and DC and co are making a fine mess trying to get us out of it!. even the IMF has said words to the effect of "em..hmm..we think you are f*&ed.. sorry chaps but you are on your own!" fact is we are currently one trillion pounds in debt with a deficit of 159.8 billion as of 2009/2010 so no matter how you slice it its a big sh1t sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite. But hay its not the big wigs of Westminster that suffer nor the barons of big business that can simply shift operations over seas.. its the small businesses and mass unemployed. which brings me back to topic. If SBC think that an airport is a viable future business given the rising fuel costs and world economic climate the i suggest they should look at the books again. the future will be slower forms of aircraft such as the new hybrid airship that is been developed.
[quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.[/p][/quote]A bit off topic but there is no current main party that knows what to do. Labour made a mess getting in to debt and DC and co are making a fine mess trying to get us out of it!. even the IMF has said words to the effect of "em..hmm..we think you are f*&ed.. sorry chaps but you are on your own!" fact is we are currently one trillion pounds in debt with a deficit of 159.8 billion as of 2009/2010 so no matter how you slice it its a big sh1t sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite. But hay its not the big wigs of Westminster that suffer nor the barons of big business that can simply shift operations over seas.. its the small businesses and mass unemployed. which brings me back to topic. If SBC think that an airport is a viable future business given the rising fuel costs and world economic climate the i suggest they should look at the books again. the future will be slower forms of aircraft such as the new hybrid airship that is been developed. jayman

8:11pm Thu 3 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

jayman wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out. An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse. And yet they still want to appeal. Remind me why business would invest in this country? ..... Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area. ..... Well done SBC and Stobart Group! ...... Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic. And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :)
hmm, fantastic. it looks pretty much like a generic airport carrying a promise of prosperity and wealth for the residents of Southend. however no one can deliver on such a pledge and the wealth wont be going to Joe blogs of southend avenue will it. it will go to council coffers and the Stobart group in return for noise and pollution. BUT! before you start with the usual my point isn't environmental, its economic. and the fact that the people of Southend are being fed the same crock of shittt from the same bloody council. "it will bring jobs" they say. yes but i don't see 50 air traffic controllers or mechanics ect, sitting outside the job centre with nothing to do.. no they will come in from outside areas so the benefit to the local residents will be to the ones that are not here yet.
But Jayman while its true you wont find experienced Air traffic Controllers sat outside Southend Jobplus. Those employees from outside the area will still contribute to the local economy.
But I know from previous adverts that the Airport have taken on trainee Controllers, and fully funded their training from scratch.
.....
As for Mechanics, you may remember the recent Articles on Apprenticeships at ATC Lasham based at the Airport?
Only 2 weeks ago or so the airport advertised 60 new jobs (security, flight ops, firemen etc.). Virtually all available to 'Joe Blogs' of Southend Avenue.
No doubt as operators appear and the Airport grows to a small regional Airport, more jobs will appear.
Then in the wider context, the local hotels and service industry will benefit. With good links to Europe and the rest of the British Isles, hopefully companies will be encouraged to invest in the employment market here.
....
So thankfully I take an optimistic view of the Airport which has been talking of these plans for over 10 years.
Not to mention the other improvements around the area to bring us into this century.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: So to date, the Extension was thoroughly consulted by the Council (even more so after SAEN's whinging) and the Airport. The permission was granted by the Council. It was called in by the then Secretary of State for Communities, and subsequently ratified. An applcation was made by someone that has apparently never complained about noise at the Airport, or taken part in any consultation (See Echo report earlier). Now a high court Judge has thrown it out. An application paid for by the public and defended by the public purse. And yet they still want to appeal. Remind me why business would invest in this country? ..... Anyway, a big step forward for the town and area. Time SAEN stopped wasting tax payers money and delaying potential investment and employment in the area. ..... Well done SBC and Stobart Group! ...... Jayman the polished Turd as you put it, is looking fantastic. And just to clarify, the Airport wont be taking any larger Aircraft with the extension, but the aircraft will now have passengers on board. :)[/p][/quote]hmm, fantastic. it looks pretty much like a generic airport carrying a promise of prosperity and wealth for the residents of Southend. however no one can deliver on such a pledge and the wealth wont be going to Joe blogs of southend avenue will it. it will go to council coffers and the Stobart group in return for noise and pollution. BUT! before you start with the usual my point isn't environmental, its economic. and the fact that the people of Southend are being fed the same crock of shittt from the same bloody council. "it will bring jobs" they say. yes but i don't see 50 air traffic controllers or mechanics ect, sitting outside the job centre with nothing to do.. no they will come in from outside areas so the benefit to the local residents will be to the ones that are not here yet.[/p][/quote]But Jayman while its true you wont find experienced Air traffic Controllers sat outside Southend Jobplus. Those employees from outside the area will still contribute to the local economy. But I know from previous adverts that the Airport have taken on trainee Controllers, and fully funded their training from scratch. ..... As for Mechanics, you may remember the recent Articles on Apprenticeships at ATC Lasham based at the Airport? Only 2 weeks ago or so the airport advertised 60 new jobs (security, flight ops, firemen etc.). Virtually all available to 'Joe Blogs' of Southend Avenue. No doubt as operators appear and the Airport grows to a small regional Airport, more jobs will appear. Then in the wider context, the local hotels and service industry will benefit. With good links to Europe and the rest of the British Isles, hopefully companies will be encouraged to invest in the employment market here. .... So thankfully I take an optimistic view of the Airport which has been talking of these plans for over 10 years. Not to mention the other improvements around the area to bring us into this century. BASILBRUSH

8:24pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jayman says...

i agree to disagree. all listed are piece meal PR stunts and press releases to pacify the natives, the real incentive for SBC is in house glory and self importance with a bit of tax revenue for good measure. i very much doubt that any of the proposed benefits will filter down to joe blogs but if I am proved wrong then that will be a good day. I may move to the oil tar mine regions of Canada they give the locals hard cash for raping the land. more then we got from north sea gas and oil and mass pollution industries..
i agree to disagree. all listed are piece meal PR stunts and press releases to pacify the natives, the real incentive for SBC is in house glory and self importance with a bit of tax revenue for good measure. i very much doubt that any of the proposed benefits will filter down to joe blogs but if I am proved wrong then that will be a good day. I may move to the oil tar mine regions of Canada they give the locals hard cash for raping the land. more then we got from north sea gas and oil and mass pollution industries.. jayman

8:45pm Thu 3 Feb 11

mikkie4 says...

great news for southend airport and all its suporters.we now have an airline that flies to ireland,how about arre arren flying to dublin,to connect with air lingus for flights to the good old u.s.of a(they code share}so you would not have to check in again,there must be a lot of people in the south east that would welcome this,as it would save a long drive to either gatwick or heathrow.that would be one up for southend against stansted
great news for southend airport and all its suporters.we now have an airline that flies to ireland,how about arre arren flying to dublin,to connect with air lingus for flights to the good old u.s.of a(they code share}so you would not have to check in again,there must be a lot of people in the south east that would welcome this,as it would save a long drive to either gatwick or heathrow.that would be one up for southend against stansted mikkie4

9:39pm Thu 3 Feb 11

'V' says...

Rick Jones wrote:
RobertFS wrote:
At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
OMG

So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust.

Shame the rest cant remembe rit.
Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK.

But the ignorant blame the government.
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.[/p][/quote]OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit.[/p][/quote]Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK. But the ignorant blame the government. 'V'

9:50pm Thu 3 Feb 11

APR says...

I'm surprised there's nothing in the news about the light aircraft which force landed near Hanningfield this afternoon.
.
The pilot was uninjured.
The aircraft was a TIPSY NIPPER G-ATBW from Stapleford
I'm surprised there's nothing in the news about the light aircraft which force landed near Hanningfield this afternoon. . The pilot was uninjured. The aircraft was a TIPSY NIPPER G-ATBW from Stapleford APR

9:52pm Thu 3 Feb 11

fredfoot says...

Good news bring on the planes, these stop the airport gang were about when I was a child in the forties/fifties and the airport is still with us, the airport was here before most of us moved to the area so there should be no complaints.
Good news bring on the planes, these stop the airport gang were about when I was a child in the forties/fifties and the airport is still with us, the airport was here before most of us moved to the area so there should be no complaints. fredfoot

9:52pm Thu 3 Feb 11

xchrissiex says...

Fantastic! Really pleased this is happening! Bring it on!

For those who are moaning about the noise, think of the poor buggers who live under gatwick or heathrow when you jet off on holiday....
Fantastic! Really pleased this is happening! Bring it on! For those who are moaning about the noise, think of the poor buggers who live under gatwick or heathrow when you jet off on holiday.... xchrissiex

10:32pm Thu 3 Feb 11

mikkie4 says...

jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
jayman i;ll help you pack!!!! mikkie4

10:39pm Thu 3 Feb 11

John the resonator says...

jayman wrote:
fire up the Sopwith Camel and start polishing the metaphorical turd. its time to fly from rochford airport.. oh sorry, london southend airport. polish harder!
Must you mention the Polish, it is so provocative in these parts!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: fire up the Sopwith Camel and start polishing the metaphorical turd. its time to fly from rochford airport.. oh sorry, london southend airport. polish harder![/p][/quote]Must you mention the Polish, it is so provocative in these parts! John the resonator

10:41pm Thu 3 Feb 11

x2k says...

Common sense prevails, hurrah!
---
Now, where's my boarding pass...
Common sense prevails, hurrah! --- Now, where's my boarding pass... x2k

10:47pm Thu 3 Feb 11

jayman says...

mikkie4 wrote:
jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
[quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do. jayman

10:55pm Thu 3 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

'V' wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
RobertFS wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit.
Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK. But the ignorant blame the government.
So the bankers sold our gold reserves off cheap I never knew that, did they also implement the last governments spend spend spend policy, did the bankers also Fail to limit immigration, did the bankers have anything to do with the £26bn for computer systems that have suffered severe delays, run millions of pounds over budget or have been cancelled altogether.

Labour failed the UK and now put the blame on the coalition government for the cuts that are needed to get the country on to the right track again.

Back to the airport...
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.[/p][/quote]OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit.[/p][/quote]Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK. But the ignorant blame the government.[/p][/quote]So the bankers sold our gold reserves off cheap I never knew that, did they also implement the last governments spend spend spend policy, did the bankers also Fail to limit immigration, did the bankers have anything to do with the £26bn for computer systems that have suffered severe delays, run millions of pounds over budget or have been cancelled altogether. Labour failed the UK and now put the blame on the coalition government for the cuts that are needed to get the country on to the right track again. Back to the airport... Rick Jones

11:14pm Thu 3 Feb 11

kensbowling says...

perhaps they should call the new road 'Stobart Way' and now consider a Royal Opening for the 'new' Southend Airport as it will be when everything is built !! I expect other new airline services as yet unannounced are also in the pipeline.
perhaps they should call the new road 'Stobart Way' and now consider a Royal Opening for the 'new' Southend Airport as it will be when everything is built !! I expect other new airline services as yet unannounced are also in the pipeline. kensbowling

11:14pm Thu 3 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

jayman wrote:
mikkie4 wrote:
jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
I see you subscribe to SAENs 'doom' attitude which the Airline industries safety record absolutely contradicts.
What you fail to mention is that WITH the extension, enhanced precision Navigation aids are being introduced as well as the inherent improved safety provided by a longer stretch of Tarmac.. (All provided in the public documents to see).
The section 106 agreement will also come into equation, restricting the amount of movements.
I'm sorry that you have such a negative view on life Jayman.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.[/p][/quote]I see you subscribe to SAENs 'doom' attitude which the Airline industries safety record absolutely contradicts. What you fail to mention is that WITH the extension, enhanced precision Navigation aids are being introduced as well as the inherent improved safety provided by a longer stretch of Tarmac.. (All provided in the public documents to see). The section 106 agreement will also come into equation, restricting the amount of movements. I'm sorry that you have such a negative view on life Jayman. BASILBRUSH

11:17pm Thu 3 Feb 11

ethel the frog says...

Rick Jones wrote:
'V' wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
RobertFS wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.
OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit.
Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK. But the ignorant blame the government.
So the bankers sold our gold reserves off cheap I never knew that, did they also implement the last governments spend spend spend policy, did the bankers also Fail to limit immigration, did the bankers have anything to do with the £26bn for computer systems that have suffered severe delays, run millions of pounds over budget or have been cancelled altogether.

Labour failed the UK and now put the blame on the coalition government for the cuts that are needed to get the country on to the right track again.

Back to the airport...
Nice one Rick -I can almost hear V crying into his inflatable Tony Blair doll from here!
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RobertFS[/bold] wrote: At last common sense rules! Amess should be ashamed of himself for associating with the 'inSAEN' supporters. For the first time in my life I actually considered voting for another party despite DC's attempt to sort out the economy which was destroyed by Brown the Clown. What I cannot understand is all the angst against the coalition about the cut backs that are proposed. Do not they understand that Brown through his incompetence brought this country close to bankruptcy? Forget the bankers - all their income is taxable and the profit that they bring to this country is inestimably. The problem has always been Brown with all his subversive taxes over 13 years and his misappropriation of all that income derived from these monies.[/p][/quote]OMG So I am not the only peson alive to remember the FACT it was the Blair-Brown era of spend spend spend that sent UK Plc bust bust bust. Shame the rest cant remembe rit.[/p][/quote]Actually it was unregulated banking procedures and greedy bankers that bankrupted the UK. But the ignorant blame the government.[/p][/quote]So the bankers sold our gold reserves off cheap I never knew that, did they also implement the last governments spend spend spend policy, did the bankers also Fail to limit immigration, did the bankers have anything to do with the £26bn for computer systems that have suffered severe delays, run millions of pounds over budget or have been cancelled altogether. Labour failed the UK and now put the blame on the coalition government for the cuts that are needed to get the country on to the right track again. Back to the airport...[/p][/quote]Nice one Rick -I can almost hear V crying into his inflatable Tony Blair doll from here! ethel the frog

1:31am Fri 4 Feb 11

trucker1 says...

Good news all round, the silent majority seem to suport the airport,lets hope all the wingers now go away and multiply
Good news all round, the silent majority seem to suport the airport,lets hope all the wingers now go away and multiply trucker1

1:59am Fri 4 Feb 11

bigidiot says...

jayman wrote:
mikkie4 wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
jayman

I know exactly how I would feel if a plane were to make an emergency landing, after watching the Beach king 200 ( a 12 seater aircraft ) crash into Macs Garage that fateful Saturday morning some 22 odd years ago. It was a sound and sight I would not like to hear or see again. Only one fatality - the pilot - whom I strongly believe was struggling with the controls right to the last to avoid the sleeping population in the area of the accident. But they do say that (using the art of statistics) airflight is safer than crossing the road, and as I have lived in the area for over 40 odd years, I would tend to agree with the statistics. Let the airport grow and see what the future brings, it could go either way so the comments both for and against could potentially be correct depending on what the future brings...
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.[/p][/quote]jayman I know exactly how I would feel if a plane were to make an emergency landing, after watching the Beach king 200 ( a 12 seater aircraft ) crash into Macs Garage that fateful Saturday morning some 22 odd years ago. It was a sound and sight I would not like to hear or see again. Only one fatality - the pilot - whom I strongly believe was struggling with the controls right to the last to avoid the sleeping population in the area of the accident. But they do say that (using the art of statistics) airflight is safer than crossing the road, and as I have lived in the area for over 40 odd years, I would tend to agree with the statistics. Let the airport grow and see what the future brings, it could go either way so the comments both for and against could potentially be correct depending on what the future brings... bigidiot

4:57am Fri 4 Feb 11

Bosniavet says...

Good News, now let's hope they keep the momentum up now.
I can't help wondering if SAEN had been here in 1940,would they have raised objections to the RAF flying their fighters out of what was then known as RAF Rochford!
If the members of SAEN want another "cause", I'm sure SKIPP would happily accept their help......

Only one minor gripe, I tried to price up a flight from the airport with Aer Arann, but despite the press release on their website, there is no mention of the new route(s) from Southend.
Good News, now let's hope they keep the momentum up now. I can't help wondering if SAEN had been here in 1940,would they have raised objections to the RAF flying their fighters out of what was then known as RAF Rochford! If the members of SAEN want another "cause", I'm sure SKIPP would happily accept their help...... Only one minor gripe, I tried to price up a flight from the airport with Aer Arann, but despite the press release on their website, there is no mention of the new route(s) from Southend. Bosniavet

8:53am Fri 4 Feb 11

j-w says...

bosniavet, have you visited their page before, you might need to refresh the page ctrl and f5 , southend should then appear. around £75 return.
bosniavet, have you visited their page before, you might need to refresh the page ctrl and f5 , southend should then appear. around £75 return. j-w

9:04am Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
jayman wrote:
mikkie4 wrote:
jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
I see you subscribe to SAENs 'doom' attitude which the Airline industries safety record absolutely contradicts.
What you fail to mention is that WITH the extension, enhanced precision Navigation aids are being introduced as well as the inherent improved safety provided by a longer stretch of Tarmac.. (All provided in the public documents to see).
The section 106 agreement will also come into equation, restricting the amount of movements.
I'm sorry that you have such a negative view on life Jayman.
i struggle to see any positives here. I don't use air travel. and see no point in this airport being expanded the way it has. I have not yet heard a convincing argument that it will bring anything other then problems to the area. Is all to do with the fact that its a company i know nothing about to a council I don't trust, presenting a development i cant see the point of. sort of a reason and logic approach. but alas there is nothing that can be done now as the decision has been made. I just hope people could be a bit more subjective in there opinion on the airport instead of acting like the councils digital Sycophants. trust me I have no connection with any pressure group. i am mealy an individual with very valid concerns in regards to the debacle yet to come...
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.[/p][/quote]I see you subscribe to SAENs 'doom' attitude which the Airline industries safety record absolutely contradicts. What you fail to mention is that WITH the extension, enhanced precision Navigation aids are being introduced as well as the inherent improved safety provided by a longer stretch of Tarmac.. (All provided in the public documents to see). The section 106 agreement will also come into equation, restricting the amount of movements. I'm sorry that you have such a negative view on life Jayman.[/p][/quote]i struggle to see any positives here. I don't use air travel. and see no point in this airport being expanded the way it has. I have not yet heard a convincing argument that it will bring anything other then problems to the area. Is all to do with the fact that its a company i know nothing about to a council I don't trust, presenting a development i cant see the point of. sort of a reason and logic approach. but alas there is nothing that can be done now as the decision has been made. I just hope people could be a bit more subjective in there opinion on the airport instead of acting like the councils digital Sycophants. trust me I have no connection with any pressure group. i am mealy an individual with very valid concerns in regards to the debacle yet to come... jayman

9:29am Fri 4 Feb 11

r6keith says...

jayman wrote:
mikkie4 wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
First off if a plane did make an emergency landing at the airport unless you were actually here at the airport you would no nothing about ,the same can be said for most the things that happen around us , the first you ever know about whats going on is via newspapers or local radio and with out this media you would carry on blissfully unaware. You also mentioned the densely populated areas , well the areas under the flight path have hardly changed since the the last time the airport was busy. Lots of dwellings might now be flats but there was hardly any room left under these routes to build more houses even back in the sixties.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.[/p][/quote]First off if a plane did make an emergency landing at the airport unless you were actually here at the airport you would no nothing about ,the same can be said for most the things that happen around us , the first you ever know about whats going on is via newspapers or local radio and with out this media you would carry on blissfully unaware. You also mentioned the densely populated areas , well the areas under the flight path have hardly changed since the the last time the airport was busy. Lots of dwellings might now be flats but there was hardly any room left under these routes to build more houses even back in the sixties. r6keith

9:44am Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

r6keith wrote:
jayman wrote:
mikkie4 wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!!
all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.
First off if a plane did make an emergency landing at the airport unless you were actually here at the airport you would no nothing about ,the same can be said for most the things that happen around us , the first you ever know about whats going on is via newspapers or local radio and with out this media you would carry on blissfully unaware. You also mentioned the densely populated areas , well the areas under the flight path have hardly changed since the the last time the airport was busy. Lots of dwellings might now be flats but there was hardly any room left under these routes to build more houses even back in the sixties.
the landing approach follows the river roach into the airport, this is good as it presents less of a problem. the problem is however the take off approach heading west. the risk of bird strikes and runway overshoot are a major problem as it would be smack bang into the townscape as seen in the photo above. i know every effort is given to prevent this problem but I don't feel there is enough space.. it would be a different issue if it was industrial real estate or open green space but its peoples back gardens and houses ect. I for one say decommission the airport and go with Boris Johnson plan to build a purpose built airport in the estuary with brand new infrastructure.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikkie4[/bold] wrote: jayman i;ll help you pack!!!![/p][/quote]all im trying to say is that we are in a race to the bottom. the airport is now an inevitable thing. It has been there before i was born. but to think that locals around any major airport are having a good time is a bit inaccurate. how will you feel when a passenger plane makes a hard emergency landing. so lets all absent mindedly agree that a expansion programme of an airport in very close proximity to one of the most densely populated towns in the country is a splendid idea and lets believe that given even the slightest risk that the argument for economic growth holds any worth whatsoever.. I admire your positivity and ignorance, i truly do.[/p][/quote]First off if a plane did make an emergency landing at the airport unless you were actually here at the airport you would no nothing about ,the same can be said for most the things that happen around us , the first you ever know about whats going on is via newspapers or local radio and with out this media you would carry on blissfully unaware. You also mentioned the densely populated areas , well the areas under the flight path have hardly changed since the the last time the airport was busy. Lots of dwellings might now be flats but there was hardly any room left under these routes to build more houses even back in the sixties.[/p][/quote]the landing approach follows the river roach into the airport, this is good as it presents less of a problem. the problem is however the take off approach heading west. the risk of bird strikes and runway overshoot are a major problem as it would be smack bang into the townscape as seen in the photo above. i know every effort is given to prevent this problem but I don't feel there is enough space.. it would be a different issue if it was industrial real estate or open green space but its peoples back gardens and houses ect. I for one say decommission the airport and go with Boris Johnson plan to build a purpose built airport in the estuary with brand new infrastructure. jayman

10:02am Fri 4 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Jayman, The point of the project is to bring the existing Airport with potential, up to modern day safety standards again, in order to provide the services it used to. By doing so, it also provides much needed employment to the area and potential inward investment.
Its only going to ever be a small Regional airport. Nothing like the size of Stansted, and with less permissible flights than London city.
Just because people don't agree with your point of view but instead agree with what the council are doing for a change. It doesn't mean they are acting like 'councils digital sychophants'.
Thankfully with the internet, most people are able to do their own research, instead of relying on pressure groups with bias agendas and propaganda.
You say you don't know anything about Stobart. Do you only approve of projects in this town by companies you have an in depth knowledge of? Stobart are perhaps one of the easiest to research.
I haven't always been a fan of this council, but mainly because I thought they were so lax in progressing the town. Thankfully I have been proved wrong over the past couple of years, and support the majority of developments in this town.
I will never fully trust a politician, but I do vote every election. Until I don't like what the current council are doing, I will keep voting for them.
.....
Having valid concerns is normal, but although you say you do not subscribe to any pressure groups. I would suggest you give the local one a wide berth. They subscribe to scaremongering and inaccuracies. That has been proven many times.
They wont even publish or respond to comments on their site which they cant answer and which dare to contradict them.
If they qualify for Legal Aid for any appeal, then it makes a mockery of the system as well as wasting 'our' money.
Jayman, The point of the project is to bring the existing Airport with potential, up to modern day safety standards again, in order to provide the services it used to. By doing so, it also provides much needed employment to the area and potential inward investment. Its only going to ever be a small Regional airport. Nothing like the size of Stansted, and with less permissible flights than London city. Just because people don't agree with your point of view but instead agree with what the council are doing for a change. It doesn't mean they are acting like 'councils digital sychophants'. Thankfully with the internet, most people are able to do their own research, instead of relying on pressure groups with bias agendas and propaganda. You say you don't know anything about Stobart. Do you only approve of projects in this town by companies you have an in depth knowledge of? Stobart are perhaps one of the easiest to research. I haven't always been a fan of this council, but mainly because I thought they were so lax in progressing the town. Thankfully I have been proved wrong over the past couple of years, and support the majority of developments in this town. I will never fully trust a politician, but I do vote every election. Until I don't like what the current council are doing, I will keep voting for them. ..... Having valid concerns is normal, but although you say you do not subscribe to any pressure groups. I would suggest you give the local one a wide berth. They subscribe to scaremongering and inaccuracies. That has been proven many times. They wont even publish or respond to comments on their site which they cant answer and which dare to contradict them. If they qualify for Legal Aid for any appeal, then it makes a mockery of the system as well as wasting 'our' money. BASILBRUSH

10:18am Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Jayman, The point of the project is to bring the existing Airport with potential, up to modern day safety standards again, in order to provide the services it used to. By doing so, it also provides much needed employment to the area and potential inward investment.
Its only going to ever be a small Regional airport. Nothing like the size of Stansted, and with less permissible flights than London city.
Just because people don't agree with your point of view but instead agree with what the council are doing for a change. It doesn't mean they are acting like 'councils digital sychophants'.
Thankfully with the internet, most people are able to do their own research, instead of relying on pressure groups with bias agendas and propaganda.
You say you don't know anything about Stobart. Do you only approve of projects in this town by companies you have an in depth knowledge of? Stobart are perhaps one of the easiest to research.
I haven't always been a fan of this council, but mainly because I thought they were so lax in progressing the town. Thankfully I have been proved wrong over the past couple of years, and support the majority of developments in this town.
I will never fully trust a politician, but I do vote every election. Until I don't like what the current council are doing, I will keep voting for them.
.....
Having valid concerns is normal, but although you say you do not subscribe to any pressure groups. I would suggest you give the local one a wide berth. They subscribe to scaremongering and inaccuracies. That has been proven many times.
They wont even publish or respond to comments on their site which they cant answer and which dare to contradict them.
If they qualify for Legal Aid for any appeal, then it makes a mockery of the system as well as wasting 'our' money.
once again your argument is well put and precise but I have to disagree. the proof as they say is in the pudding. lets just wait and see if all the councils projects work for the future benefit of the town and not some misguided shambolic vision of carving a city out of a town. Southend council,. the worst elements of public spending waste with all the arrogance of a self styled corporation.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: Jayman, The point of the project is to bring the existing Airport with potential, up to modern day safety standards again, in order to provide the services it used to. By doing so, it also provides much needed employment to the area and potential inward investment. Its only going to ever be a small Regional airport. Nothing like the size of Stansted, and with less permissible flights than London city. Just because people don't agree with your point of view but instead agree with what the council are doing for a change. It doesn't mean they are acting like 'councils digital sychophants'. Thankfully with the internet, most people are able to do their own research, instead of relying on pressure groups with bias agendas and propaganda. You say you don't know anything about Stobart. Do you only approve of projects in this town by companies you have an in depth knowledge of? Stobart are perhaps one of the easiest to research. I haven't always been a fan of this council, but mainly because I thought they were so lax in progressing the town. Thankfully I have been proved wrong over the past couple of years, and support the majority of developments in this town. I will never fully trust a politician, but I do vote every election. Until I don't like what the current council are doing, I will keep voting for them. ..... Having valid concerns is normal, but although you say you do not subscribe to any pressure groups. I would suggest you give the local one a wide berth. They subscribe to scaremongering and inaccuracies. That has been proven many times. They wont even publish or respond to comments on their site which they cant answer and which dare to contradict them. If they qualify for Legal Aid for any appeal, then it makes a mockery of the system as well as wasting 'our' money.[/p][/quote]once again your argument is well put and precise but I have to disagree. the proof as they say is in the pudding. lets just wait and see if all the councils projects work for the future benefit of the town and not some misguided shambolic vision of carving a city out of a town. Southend council,. the worst elements of public spending waste with all the arrogance of a self styled corporation. jayman

10:38am Fri 4 Feb 11

RaJe says...

Jayman - I'd like to quote many of your statements which I find staggeringly misinformed.
The future of aviation is in airships??? No, the history of aviation is in airships.
You don’t feel that there is sufficient space for the airport to operate safely??? On what basis do you table those feelings? Perhaps government regulators such as the CAA have slightly more robust and better informed feelings on such matters before granting an airport a license to operate?
Worried about space??? Take a look at the London City/London Heathrow approaches before suggesting there is any issue at Southend…
The estuary airport WILL NEVER HAPPEN – it’s a pipe dream. We have 5 airports serving London well, soon to be 6. You need constraints as tight as the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, really their only airport, before you consider spending billions on reclaimed land and tunneling out surface access. Who exactly would fund this – was it not you who also sighted the countries current debt exposure as an issue? Well you could double that debt figure if we went ahead with estuary airport idea…

I implore you to be a little more reasonable. There is no new runway capacity likely to be seen in the South East for 20 years or so. Southend is well positioned to alleviate some of the peak time congestion pressures in the London area airports whilst serving a buoyant local market of business and leisure travelers. This is nothing but a good thing for the area and as the connectivity increases I am confident that the Essex Chamber of Commerce and local councils will see increasing interest from companies looking for somewhere to base their UK operations.
Jayman - I'd like to quote many of your statements which I find staggeringly misinformed. The future of aviation is in airships??? No, the history of aviation is in airships. You don’t feel that there is sufficient space for the airport to operate safely??? On what basis do you table those feelings? Perhaps government regulators such as the CAA have slightly more robust and better informed feelings on such matters before granting an airport a license to operate? Worried about space??? Take a look at the London City/London Heathrow approaches before suggesting there is any issue at Southend… The estuary airport WILL NEVER HAPPEN – it’s a pipe dream. We have 5 airports serving London well, soon to be 6. You need constraints as tight as the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong, really their only airport, before you consider spending billions on reclaimed land and tunneling out surface access. Who exactly would fund this – was it not you who also sighted the countries current debt exposure as an issue? Well you could double that debt figure if we went ahead with estuary airport idea… I implore you to be a little more reasonable. There is no new runway capacity likely to be seen in the South East for 20 years or so. Southend is well positioned to alleviate some of the peak time congestion pressures in the London area airports whilst serving a buoyant local market of business and leisure travelers. This is nothing but a good thing for the area and as the connectivity increases I am confident that the Essex Chamber of Commerce and local councils will see increasing interest from companies looking for somewhere to base their UK operations. RaJe

11:02am Fri 4 Feb 11

ShoeburyCyclist says...

Re: Airships. Jayman has a valid point. There are companies are currently R&D-ing airships:

http://tinyurl.com/3
xz4v3f

And the US military has given approval to Northrop Grumman's long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV) airship.

http://tinyurl.com/5
svubvw
Re: Airships. Jayman has a valid point. There are companies are currently R&D-ing airships: http://tinyurl.com/3 xz4v3f And the US military has given approval to Northrop Grumman's long-endurance multi-intelligence vehicle (LEMV) airship. http://tinyurl.com/5 svubvw ShoeburyCyclist

11:04am Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

oh as a matter of fact i do do my research.

1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/technology-121
10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel.

2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment.

3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward.

the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.
oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work. jayman

11:49am Fri 4 Feb 11

heartbeat says...

Fantastic news! All the doom-mongers who must secretly get more of a kick out of moaning about how bad things are will now need to move elsewhere!

A substantial piece of good news like this which really will make a positive impact on the local economy, jobs and career prospects for our kids (not to mention ourselves now most of us will need to work until 66..) is brilliant news.

I for one look forward to the day when telling people I come from Southend doesnt evoke groans of "poor you!" or laughter at the stereotype (all too frequently true), as it does from people far and wide.

House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too as professionals realise Southend and environs prices are about half what they are near other major south-eastern airports - good news for home owners of course, but not so good for our kids unfortunately. However, I would prefer them to grow up in an area full of aspiration and drive to achieve rather than apathy and pessimissm (as is frequently the case at the moment) any day!!!!!
Fantastic news! All the doom-mongers who must secretly get more of a kick out of moaning about how bad things are will now need to move elsewhere! A substantial piece of good news like this which really will make a positive impact on the local economy, jobs and career prospects for our kids (not to mention ourselves now most of us will need to work until 66..) is brilliant news. I for one look forward to the day when telling people I come from Southend doesnt evoke groans of "poor you!" or laughter at the stereotype (all too frequently true), as it does from people far and wide. House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too as professionals realise Southend and environs prices are about half what they are near other major south-eastern airports - good news for home owners of course, but not so good for our kids unfortunately. However, I would prefer them to grow up in an area full of aspiration and drive to achieve rather than apathy and pessimissm (as is frequently the case at the moment) any day!!!!! heartbeat

11:55am Fri 4 Feb 11

ShoeburyCyclist says...

'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too '


Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths.
'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too ' Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths. ShoeburyCyclist

11:57am Fri 4 Feb 11

RaJe says...

Interesting – Airships in heavy lift – perhaps but I can’t see the passenger market taking a further step back from the 2-3 hours London-New York of the Concorde era, to the current c.7 hours available today to the c.20-30 hours it might conceivably take and airship!! There is a military use, as Lock-ness-shoe-monst
er bike man says, presently surveillance and there is a future in heavylift, commercial uses will stem from this as is always the way, but this is unlikely to extend to the passenger market, unless Fred Olsen Cruise Lines would like offer an alternative product...
In 30 years time??? 30 years??? – so we should stand still for 30 years waiting for the airship miracle or Borris ‘fantasy’ Island to cure all aviation ills?

Jayman, your arguments seem more emotional than evidential. The facts support the airport as a major economic driver, a significant business and social commodity and above all, an aviation asset which is as SAFE as any other as agreed by the regulatory authorities and certainly safe enough to operate within the UK’s exacting and stringent compliance matrices.
Interesting – Airships in heavy lift – perhaps but I can’t see the passenger market taking a further step back from the 2-3 hours London-New York of the Concorde era, to the current c.7 hours available today to the c.20-30 hours it might conceivably take and airship!! There is a military use, as Lock-ness-shoe-monst er bike man says, presently surveillance and there is a future in heavylift, commercial uses will stem from this as is always the way, but this is unlikely to extend to the passenger market, unless Fred Olsen Cruise Lines would like offer an alternative product... In 30 years time??? 30 years??? – so we should stand still for 30 years waiting for the airship miracle or Borris ‘fantasy’ Island to cure all aviation ills? Jayman, your arguments seem more emotional than evidential. The facts support the airport as a major economic driver, a significant business and social commodity and above all, an aviation asset which is as SAFE as any other as agreed by the regulatory authorities and certainly safe enough to operate within the UK’s exacting and stringent compliance matrices. RaJe

12:06pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

jayman wrote:
oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.
Jayman: The Thames Esturay airport is the dream of the mayor of london (read it LONDON) he has no say over the Thames Estuary all he is intrested in is apeasing the people arround Heathrow.

The big flaw in the Thames Estuary airport is Birds Bird and more Birds, weather high winds and fog and the Firing range there is also the fact the supporters always distort.

They say all arrivals and depatures will be over water, a LIE or are these aircraft never going to turn on to the correct heading, looking at the site they propose to use the turning point will eb Southend just as they power up the engines for climbing to designated flight paths is that what you want?

There is also the multi £billion cost, thanks to Blair-brown the country is skint.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.[/p][/quote]Jayman: The Thames Esturay airport is the dream of the mayor of london (read it LONDON) he has no say over the Thames Estuary all he is intrested in is apeasing the people arround Heathrow. The big flaw in the Thames Estuary airport is Birds Bird and more Birds, weather high winds and fog and the Firing range there is also the fact the supporters always distort. They say all arrivals and depatures will be over water, a LIE or are these aircraft never going to turn on to the correct heading, looking at the site they propose to use the turning point will eb Southend just as they power up the engines for climbing to designated flight paths is that what you want? There is also the multi £billion cost, thanks to Blair-brown the country is skint. Rick Jones

12:40pm Fri 4 Feb 11

heartbeat says...

ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too '


Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths.
You won't find many cheap properties within a few miles of Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted - flight path or no flight path!!!
[quote][p][bold]ShoeburyCyclist[/bold] wrote: 'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too ' Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths.[/p][/quote]You won't find many cheap properties within a few miles of Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted - flight path or no flight path!!! heartbeat

2:01pm Fri 4 Feb 11

ShoeburyCyclist says...

heartbeat wrote:
ShoeburyCyclist wrote:
'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too '


Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths.
You won't find many cheap properties within a few miles of Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted - flight path or no flight path!!!
I'm not sure about Stansted and Gatwick, but I do know that property prices around Heathrow are artificially bolstered by the Property Market Support Bond.

http://tinyurl.com/6
eokewq

"This is a blight scheme and provides a transferable bond which gives people the confidence to buy and sell property in the area at unblighted prices."

'Blight scheme' and 'unblighted', that isn't the language of a happy housing market.
[quote][p][bold]heartbeat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ShoeburyCyclist[/bold] wrote: 'House prices in many surrounding areas are surely likely to rocket too ' Yes, there are many thousands clamouring to live under flight paths.[/p][/quote]You won't find many cheap properties within a few miles of Gatwick, Heathrow or Stansted - flight path or no flight path!!![/p][/quote]I'm not sure about Stansted and Gatwick, but I do know that property prices around Heathrow are artificially bolstered by the Property Market Support Bond. http://tinyurl.com/6 eokewq "This is a blight scheme and provides a transferable bond which gives people the confidence to buy and sell property in the area at unblighted prices." 'Blight scheme' and 'unblighted', that isn't the language of a happy housing market. ShoeburyCyclist

2:21pm Fri 4 Feb 11

RaJe says...

Comparing Southend with Heathrow is a laughable concept.
Regional airports of the size Southend will be improve quality of life and employment and therefore property prices. Look at examples such as Southampton for better proxys.
Comparing Southend with Heathrow is a laughable concept. Regional airports of the size Southend will be improve quality of life and employment and therefore property prices. Look at examples such as Southampton for better proxys. RaJe

3:37pm Fri 4 Feb 11

'V' says...

RaJe wrote:
Comparing Southend with Heathrow is a laughable concept.
Regional airports of the size Southend will be improve quality of life and employment and therefore property prices. Look at examples such as Southampton for better proxys.
I think you'll find shoeburycyclist was responding to 'heartbeat' who was the first to mention Heathrow, Gatwick etc.
[quote][p][bold]RaJe[/bold] wrote: Comparing Southend with Heathrow is a laughable concept. Regional airports of the size Southend will be improve quality of life and employment and therefore property prices. Look at examples such as Southampton for better proxys.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find shoeburycyclist was responding to 'heartbeat' who was the first to mention Heathrow, Gatwick etc. 'V'

5:36pm Fri 4 Feb 11

z0mbee says...

jayman wrote:
oh as a matter of fact i do do my research.

1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/technology-121

10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel.

2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment.

3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward.

the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.
I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but:

1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend...

2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense.

3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but: 1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend... 2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense. 3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place. z0mbee

6:13pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Nebs says...

Make the extension 800 metres then we can have proper planes, with flights further afield.
Make the extension 800 metres then we can have proper planes, with flights further afield. Nebs

7:04pm Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

z0mbee wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh as a matter of fact i do do my research.

1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/technology-121


10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel.

2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment.

3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward.

the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.
I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but:

1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend...

2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense.

3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place.
humph..

1) applies to landings
2) is referring to economical take off's
3) doesn't have to be smack bang in the estuary. I believe the latest plan is for the cliffe region of Kent further up the Thames. but a lower flood defence needs to be built.
[quote][p][bold]z0mbee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but: 1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend... 2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense. 3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place.[/p][/quote]humph.. 1) applies to landings 2) is referring to economical take off's 3) doesn't have to be smack bang in the estuary. I believe the latest plan is for the cliffe region of Kent further up the Thames. but a lower flood defence needs to be built. jayman

7:08pm Fri 4 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

http://cllrwaite.wor
dpress.com/

You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers).
I like the last sentence especially.
http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially. BASILBRUSH

7:17pm Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
http://cllrwaite.wor

dpress.com/

You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers).
I like the last sentence especially.
glad to oblige

i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for..
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially.[/p][/quote]glad to oblige i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for.. jayman

7:47pm Fri 4 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

I was refering to the last line on the judgement.
Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering.
....
So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?
I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation? BASILBRUSH

7:53pm Fri 4 Feb 11

RaJe says...

Jayman, are you suggesting that aircraft would use any less than full power on a take off???? I doubt that – any pilots available to confirm for me?
This safety line that you’re taking is an interesting one, particularly given the earlier feedback pertaining to the regulatory authorities – there is absolutely no compromise in safety at Southend; in fact, I understand they’re improving landing systems and lengthening runway end safety areas. Read the documentation! You’re demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of situation.
The concept of an economical take off for an aircraft would be one where the aircraft can maintain a constant rate of climb rather than being forced into a stepped climb. Not one where they could afford to sacrifice thrust on takeoff. If you don’t know, pretty much every departure out of any London airport currently is forced into a stepped climb. There is a better chance of an economical constant rate climb being achieved out of Southend due to it being ‘out of the way’ of the other busier London airports.
Jayman, are you suggesting that aircraft would use any less than full power on a take off???? I doubt that – any pilots available to confirm for me? This safety line that you’re taking is an interesting one, particularly given the earlier feedback pertaining to the regulatory authorities – there is absolutely no compromise in safety at Southend; in fact, I understand they’re improving landing systems and lengthening runway end safety areas. Read the documentation! You’re demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of situation. The concept of an economical take off for an aircraft would be one where the aircraft can maintain a constant rate of climb rather than being forced into a stepped climb. Not one where they could afford to sacrifice thrust on takeoff. If you don’t know, pretty much every departure out of any London airport currently is forced into a stepped climb. There is a better chance of an economical constant rate climb being achieved out of Southend due to it being ‘out of the way’ of the other busier London airports. RaJe

8:04pm Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

RaJe wrote:
Jayman, are you suggesting that aircraft would use any less than full power on a take off???? I doubt that – any pilots available to confirm for me?
This safety line that you’re taking is an interesting one, particularly given the earlier feedback pertaining to the regulatory authorities – there is absolutely no compromise in safety at Southend; in fact, I understand they’re improving landing systems and lengthening runway end safety areas. Read the documentation! You’re demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of situation.
The concept of an economical take off for an aircraft would be one where the aircraft can maintain a constant rate of climb rather than being forced into a stepped climb. Not one where they could afford to sacrifice thrust on takeoff. If you don’t know, pretty much every departure out of any London airport currently is forced into a stepped climb. There is a better chance of an economical constant rate climb being achieved out of Southend due to it being ‘out of the way’ of the other busier London airports.
i know the Anna Waite comment was a bit bad. the economical bit of the take off is the rate of thrust plus the amount of time it take to get to take off speed. this depends on the type of aircraft and the weight of the aircraft. the most fuel consuming part of a planes life is spent on take off's. carriers tend to keep fan speeds as low as possible (but within safety margins) to prevent wear on the engine and to improve fuel consumption. when the plane is airborne the avionics and aerodynamics mean thrust can be applied more easily and efficiently..
[quote][p][bold]RaJe[/bold] wrote: Jayman, are you suggesting that aircraft would use any less than full power on a take off???? I doubt that – any pilots available to confirm for me? This safety line that you’re taking is an interesting one, particularly given the earlier feedback pertaining to the regulatory authorities – there is absolutely no compromise in safety at Southend; in fact, I understand they’re improving landing systems and lengthening runway end safety areas. Read the documentation! You’re demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of situation. The concept of an economical take off for an aircraft would be one where the aircraft can maintain a constant rate of climb rather than being forced into a stepped climb. Not one where they could afford to sacrifice thrust on takeoff. If you don’t know, pretty much every departure out of any London airport currently is forced into a stepped climb. There is a better chance of an economical constant rate climb being achieved out of Southend due to it being ‘out of the way’ of the other busier London airports.[/p][/quote]i know the Anna Waite comment was a bit bad. the economical bit of the take off is the rate of thrust plus the amount of time it take to get to take off speed. this depends on the type of aircraft and the weight of the aircraft. the most fuel consuming part of a planes life is spent on take off's. carriers tend to keep fan speeds as low as possible (but within safety margins) to prevent wear on the engine and to improve fuel consumption. when the plane is airborne the avionics and aerodynamics mean thrust can be applied more easily and efficiently.. jayman

8:09pm Fri 4 Feb 11

'V' says...

jayman wrote:
z0mbee wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh as a matter of fact i do do my research.

1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk



/news/technology-121



10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel.

2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment.

3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward.

the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.
I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but:

1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend...

2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense.

3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place.
humph..

1) applies to landings
2) is referring to economical take off's
3) doesn't have to be smack bang in the estuary. I believe the latest plan is for the cliffe region of Kent further up the Thames. but a lower flood defence needs to be built.
There can be no estuary airport until the Montgomery has been dealt with. Then there are the millions of birds in the estuary...
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]z0mbee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh as a matter of fact i do do my research. 1) hybrid airships see; http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/technology-121 10386. in thirty years jet aviation will be largely a thing of the past given the cost of fuel. 2) Southend airport is not going to be the grail of regeneration as advertised Q.E.D it will remain a small regional airport and wont be rivalling anything notable or worthy of future investment. 3) London city airport has a bit of a safety measure in place.. its called the royal Victoria dock, the royal Albert dock and the king George v dock, a sort of moat for wayward aircraft. and Heathrow has such a large/long runway that pilots don't need to rely on ragging the engines to get skyward. the estuary project needs to happen as this will allow for the development of a lower themes flood barrier. incorporated in the overall project. so its not a case of who will fund it. Its more a case of when should we start work.[/p][/quote]I'm not sure how far-reaching your research is, but: 1. Your assertion about City airport assumes that all 'wayward' aircraft are able to reach the dock. This certainly wouldn't apply to anything taking off, for example. Even so, the CAA have deemed it safe enough. I would imagine the same applies to Southend... 2. All aircraft 'rag' their engines to take off. The length of the runway dictates what size of aircraft can use it, so this analogy really doesn't make sense. 3. As Rick has pointed out, the estuary airport remains a pipe dream - the 'need' for something doesn't mean it will happen, or make it feasible in the first place.[/p][/quote]humph.. 1) applies to landings 2) is referring to economical take off's 3) doesn't have to be smack bang in the estuary. I believe the latest plan is for the cliffe region of Kent further up the Thames. but a lower flood defence needs to be built.[/p][/quote]There can be no estuary airport until the Montgomery has been dealt with. Then there are the millions of birds in the estuary... 'V'

8:40pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?
Is that who asked for the JR?
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?[/p][/quote]Is that who asked for the JR? Rick Jones

8:47pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

jayman wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially.
glad to oblige i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for..
FFS Jayman what is your problem with Southend Airport, its an airport with a good safety record, yes there have been a few accidents but they are few and far between.

Nobody has ever been killed on the ground by an aircraft flying out of Southend.

The Thames Estuary airport is planned for a few miles off Foulness Cliffe was scrapped because of the high number of birds that fly through and nest in the area.

Boris actually took a boat trip to the site he wants the airport on and he did not see it why because of the dense sea fog but not as dense as you!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially.[/p][/quote]glad to oblige i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for..[/p][/quote]FFS Jayman what is your problem with Southend Airport, its an airport with a good safety record, yes there have been a few accidents but they are few and far between. Nobody has ever been killed on the ground by an aircraft flying out of Southend. The Thames Estuary airport is planned for a few miles off Foulness Cliffe was scrapped because of the high number of birds that fly through and nest in the area. Boris actually took a boat trip to the site he wants the airport on and he did not see it why because of the dense sea fog but not as dense as you! Rick Jones

8:48pm Fri 4 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Rick Jones wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?
Is that who asked for the JR?
Her name is on the document listed on the link above from anna Waites blog.
The only Laura that has been a staunch supporter of SAEN (and engaged in some interesting responses with me) on this forum is a Laura Mcdowall aka 'Loltara'.
I dont suppose it makes a great deal of difference who applied. I just hope for the towns sake they get the message that it was perfectly legal, and give up before they waste tax payers money.
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?[/p][/quote]Is that who asked for the JR?[/p][/quote]Her name is on the document listed on the link above from anna Waites blog. The only Laura that has been a staunch supporter of SAEN (and engaged in some interesting responses with me) on this forum is a Laura Mcdowall aka 'Loltara'. I dont suppose it makes a great deal of difference who applied. I just hope for the towns sake they get the message that it was perfectly legal, and give up before they waste tax payers money. BASILBRUSH

8:58pm Fri 4 Feb 11

jayman says...

Rick Jones wrote:
jayman wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially.
glad to oblige i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for..
FFS Jayman what is your problem with Southend Airport, its an airport with a good safety record, yes there have been a few accidents but they are few and far between.

Nobody has ever been killed on the ground by an aircraft flying out of Southend.

The Thames Estuary airport is planned for a few miles off Foulness Cliffe was scrapped because of the high number of birds that fly through and nest in the area.

Boris actually took a boat trip to the site he wants the airport on and he did not see it why because of the dense sea fog but not as dense as you!
i wont rest until its promoted for what it is and an end is brought to this whole "it will bring mass jobs and wealth" when it wont. it will be pretty much the same as before but with a few more jobs for the lucky few and a longer runway. im tired of the usual Southend council (snake oil salesman) nonsense. you will be please to know that I rest my case..
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: http://cllrwaite.wor dpress.com/ You can see a copy of the judgement through Cllr Waites blog (Queue the usual hate campainers). I like the last sentence especially.[/p][/quote]glad to oblige i believe you are referring to the jobs comment. if Anna Waite has any hand in this the only jobs Southend airport will generate will be air crash investigators and a coroner or two.. is that the kind of thing you where looking for..[/p][/quote]FFS Jayman what is your problem with Southend Airport, its an airport with a good safety record, yes there have been a few accidents but they are few and far between. Nobody has ever been killed on the ground by an aircraft flying out of Southend. The Thames Estuary airport is planned for a few miles off Foulness Cliffe was scrapped because of the high number of birds that fly through and nest in the area. Boris actually took a boat trip to the site he wants the airport on and he did not see it why because of the dense sea fog but not as dense as you![/p][/quote]i wont rest until its promoted for what it is and an end is brought to this whole "it will bring mass jobs and wealth" when it wont. it will be pretty much the same as before but with a few more jobs for the lucky few and a longer runway. im tired of the usual Southend council (snake oil salesman) nonsense. you will be please to know that I rest my case.. jayman

9:47pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Thames Gateway says...

That's interesting Basil, Laura is not that common a name in Southend ... I'm sure it would be really stupid to suggest that the two Laura's were possibly one and the same - Loltara/Millard/McDo
well/whatever this weeks name is, that, surely, would really be pushing the bounds of credulity!

Still, no-one seems to know of this Millard dame; out of interest, I wonder if it is possible to get Legal aid using a 'nom-de-plume' ?
That's interesting Basil, Laura is not that common a name in Southend ... I'm sure it would be really stupid to suggest that the two Laura's were possibly one and the same - Loltara/Millard/McDo well/whatever this weeks name is, that, surely, would really be pushing the bounds of credulity! Still, no-one seems to know of this Millard dame; out of interest, I wonder if it is possible to get Legal aid using a 'nom-de-plume' ? Thames Gateway

9:58pm Fri 4 Feb 11

'V' says...

The only people I've ever heard express support for the airport expansion are SBC's Tory cabinet, and half a dozen armchair warriors on this website. Other than those I have not met anyone, in Southend, in Rochford, anywhere, who supports the idea.
The only people I've ever heard express support for the airport expansion are SBC's Tory cabinet, and half a dozen armchair warriors on this website. Other than those I have not met anyone, in Southend, in Rochford, anywhere, who supports the idea. 'V'

10:41pm Fri 4 Feb 11

APR says...

Strange, my experience is the exact opposite.
Strange, my experience is the exact opposite. APR

10:44pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Thames Gateway says...

Same with me, APR. I guess it depends what you say to the person and the way you ask it!
Same with me, APR. I guess it depends what you say to the person and the way you ask it! Thames Gateway

10:55pm Fri 4 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

Same here I get more people supporting the airport than against but I do ask people who are not giving a tree a hug at the time...
Same here I get more people supporting the airport than against but I do ask people who are not giving a tree a hug at the time... Rick Jones

10:59pm Fri 4 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

And mine APR. V asking your friends at SAEN is bound drum up little or no supporters. ;)
Thames Gateway, I don't know about that. To be fair to Loltara (Laura Mcdowall), she was very scathing in a reply of people that used pseudonyms, and surely to qualify for Legal Aid that wouldn't be possible?
...
Whomever she is, is only delaying the inevitable based on the Judges summary, and I will keep saying it... Tax payers money!
And mine APR. V asking your friends at SAEN is bound drum up little or no supporters. ;) Thames Gateway, I don't know about that. To be fair to Loltara (Laura Mcdowall), she was very scathing in a reply of people that used pseudonyms, and surely to qualify for Legal Aid that wouldn't be possible? ... Whomever she is, is only delaying the inevitable based on the Judges summary, and I will keep saying it... Tax payers money! BASILBRUSH

8:15am Sat 5 Feb 11

Norfolk says...

That's very interesting about the name of the JR Applicant.
I've heard the name Laura McDowell (rather than McDowall) as allegedly being the same person as Laura Millard.
Does anyone fancy doing a bit of detective work I wonder?
I found very amusing the headline on the SAEN website which said "Public denied scrutiny once again as JR refused". How about them letting the public scrutinize the Judgement, seeing as we paid for it! Instead we have to thank Anna Waite (can I really be saying this!!) for putting it into the public domain. The Judgement was so dismissive of their case, of course, that they didn't want 'the public' reading it. What hypocrites SAEN truly are.
That's very interesting about the name of the JR Applicant. I've heard the name Laura McDowell (rather than McDowall) as allegedly being the same person as Laura Millard. Does anyone fancy doing a bit of detective work I wonder? I found very amusing the headline on the SAEN website which said "Public denied scrutiny once again as JR refused". How about them letting the public scrutinize the Judgement, seeing as we paid for it! Instead we have to thank Anna Waite (can I really be saying this!!) for putting it into the public domain. The Judgement was so dismissive of their case, of course, that they didn't want 'the public' reading it. What hypocrites SAEN truly are. Norfolk

8:25am Sat 5 Feb 11

Norfolk says...

Certainly loltara and Laura McDowall seem to be the same person as she wrote in the Echo in April 2010 giving Ms McDowall's address (an address in Blenheim Chase, Leigh) for expressions of support to SAEN.
So, is she also Laura Millard or is the forename just a coincidence? Someone out there must know surely.
Certainly loltara and Laura McDowall seem to be the same person as she wrote in the Echo in April 2010 giving Ms McDowall's address (an address in Blenheim Chase, Leigh) for expressions of support to SAEN. So, is she also Laura Millard or is the forename just a coincidence? Someone out there must know surely. Norfolk

8:34am Sat 5 Feb 11

r6keith says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?
Is that who asked for the JR?
Her name is on the document listed on the link above from anna Waites blog. The only Laura that has been a staunch supporter of SAEN (and engaged in some interesting responses with me) on this forum is a Laura Mcdowall aka 'Loltara'. I dont suppose it makes a great deal of difference who applied. I just hope for the towns sake they get the message that it was perfectly legal, and give up before they waste tax payers money.
I agree ,but you are talking about someone with connnections with SAEN and not with common sense ...
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: I was refering to the last line on the judgement. Your other comments about Air crash investigators are pure scaremongering. .... So SAEN (Denis Walker), who is Laura Millard and is it not true she has never complained about noise or taken part in any consultation?[/p][/quote]Is that who asked for the JR?[/p][/quote]Her name is on the document listed on the link above from anna Waites blog. The only Laura that has been a staunch supporter of SAEN (and engaged in some interesting responses with me) on this forum is a Laura Mcdowall aka 'Loltara'. I dont suppose it makes a great deal of difference who applied. I just hope for the towns sake they get the message that it was perfectly legal, and give up before they waste tax payers money.[/p][/quote]I agree ,but you are talking about someone with connnections with SAEN and not with common sense ... r6keith

8:46am Sat 5 Feb 11

r6keith says...

V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them.

For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path . r6keith

11:13am Sat 5 Feb 11

reptile says...

So much written on such a short story.
So much written on such a short story. reptile

12:47pm Sat 5 Feb 11

318 says...

This is only good news for southend and the local area's. I have been digging around for a while and found a LCC will move into the airport over the next few months, this is what the airport needs and it will take time to take of !
Can't wait to see those 737's and 318,319,320 landing at the airport.
This is only good news for southend and the local area's. I have been digging around for a while and found a LCC will move into the airport over the next few months, this is what the airport needs and it will take time to take of ! Can't wait to see those 737's and 318,319,320 landing at the airport. 318

1:02pm Sat 5 Feb 11

vanilla ice says...

318 wrote:
This is only good news for southend and the local area's. I have been digging around for a while and found a LCC will move into the airport over the next few months, this is what the airport needs and it will take time to take of !
Can't wait to see those 737's and 318,319,320 landing at the airport.
Got fed up with train spotting then, don’t forget to take your coat.
[quote][p][bold]318[/bold] wrote: This is only good news for southend and the local area's. I have been digging around for a while and found a LCC will move into the airport over the next few months, this is what the airport needs and it will take time to take of ! Can't wait to see those 737's and 318,319,320 landing at the airport.[/p][/quote]Got fed up with train spotting then, don’t forget to take your coat. vanilla ice

2:13pm Sat 5 Feb 11

318 says...

lol like it ! I work at lcy on a number of route's and i just might be landing at sen very soon !
I don't push a trolly.
lol like it ! I work at lcy on a number of route's and i just might be landing at sen very soon ! I don't push a trolly. 318

3:08pm Sat 5 Feb 11

'V' says...

r6keith wrote:
V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them.

For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport"

That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering?

Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council. 'V'

4:47pm Sat 5 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
Yet Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN) constantly uses the phrase 'overwhelming majority against' in his many ramblings.
A bold claim wouldnt you agree V?
......
People were asked more than once for their views with the over publicised JAAP, yet only a very small percentage did ( pro or otherwise).
The Section 106 agreement was a result of peoples concerns.
The Airport themselves canvassed the area (results can be seen online).
So you are right that r8keith has made a bold claim (but I an suspect accurate one based on my own amateur questions and seeing the underwhelming support for SAEN at council meetings and Rallys), SAEN certainly cant claim an overwhelming majority.
...
Its interesting to read that national and local anti Airport groups think that supporters believe the JR process is over. Its well known SAEN may/will appeal and have 7 days to do so. This result is just another big step forward, and again demonstrates the legality of the planning process.
......
I wonder if or when SAEN will allow a balanced discussion on their website? To date they dont allow anything that shows the truth.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]Yet Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN) constantly uses the phrase 'overwhelming majority against' in his many ramblings. A bold claim wouldnt you agree V? ...... People were asked more than once for their views with the over publicised JAAP, yet only a very small percentage did ( pro or otherwise). The Section 106 agreement was a result of peoples concerns. The Airport themselves canvassed the area (results can be seen online). So you are right that r8keith has made a bold claim (but I an suspect accurate one based on my own amateur questions and seeing the underwhelming support for SAEN at council meetings and Rallys), SAEN certainly cant claim an overwhelming majority. ... Its interesting to read that national and local anti Airport groups think that supporters believe the JR process is over. Its well known SAEN may/will appeal and have 7 days to do so. This result is just another big step forward, and again demonstrates the legality of the planning process. ...... I wonder if or when SAEN will allow a balanced discussion on their website? To date they dont allow anything that shows the truth. BASILBRUSH

4:58pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

LCC?
LCC? Rick Jones

5:01pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
Yet Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN) constantly uses the phrase 'overwhelming majority against' in his many ramblings. A bold claim wouldnt you agree V? ...... People were asked more than once for their views with the over publicised JAAP, yet only a very small percentage did ( pro or otherwise). The Section 106 agreement was a result of peoples concerns. The Airport themselves canvassed the area (results can be seen online). So you are right that r8keith has made a bold claim (but I an suspect accurate one based on my own amateur questions and seeing the underwhelming support for SAEN at council meetings and Rallys), SAEN certainly cant claim an overwhelming majority. ... Its interesting to read that national and local anti Airport groups think that supporters believe the JR process is over. Its well known SAEN may/will appeal and have 7 days to do so. This result is just another big step forward, and again demonstrates the legality of the planning process. ...... I wonder if or when SAEN will allow a balanced discussion on their website? To date they dont allow anything that shows the truth.
The last paragraph is oh so true, I commented on the "Only £20,000" All I sais wa sits not a bad wage for somebody just starting out in the job and thats its more than some people get paid in other jobs after years with the same compnay. It was never published.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]Yet Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN) constantly uses the phrase 'overwhelming majority against' in his many ramblings. A bold claim wouldnt you agree V? ...... People were asked more than once for their views with the over publicised JAAP, yet only a very small percentage did ( pro or otherwise). The Section 106 agreement was a result of peoples concerns. The Airport themselves canvassed the area (results can be seen online). So you are right that r8keith has made a bold claim (but I an suspect accurate one based on my own amateur questions and seeing the underwhelming support for SAEN at council meetings and Rallys), SAEN certainly cant claim an overwhelming majority. ... Its interesting to read that national and local anti Airport groups think that supporters believe the JR process is over. Its well known SAEN may/will appeal and have 7 days to do so. This result is just another big step forward, and again demonstrates the legality of the planning process. ...... I wonder if or when SAEN will allow a balanced discussion on their website? To date they dont allow anything that shows the truth.[/p][/quote]The last paragraph is oh so true, I commented on the "Only £20,000" All I sais wa sits not a bad wage for somebody just starting out in the job and thats its more than some people get paid in other jobs after years with the same compnay. It was never published. Rick Jones

5:56pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff says...

Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there.
And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents
thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.
Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody. Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff

6:33pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote:
Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.
It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door...

People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils.

It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do...
[quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.[/p][/quote]It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door... People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils. It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do... Rick Jones

6:36pm Sat 5 Feb 11

r6keith says...

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote:
Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.
During all the debates about the airport ,I found two instances in Essex where local residents had a strong view against something that was proposed in there area.But the percentage of objection in both cases was over thirty percent per population count , these voices were heard and the proposals refused .I do not agree that it was a foregone conclusion that the airport would happen, if enough resident actually objected to the airports planning proposals the council would have listened . But the % of population object was less than 2% thats why the extention is going ahead the people of this town want it to happen. Are you trying to tell me that over one hundred thousand people thought it was a foregone conclusion the sort of number required for your elected representatives to really sway this vote the other way you really should join SAEN .The best attended SAEN meeting was about 400 people and quite a few of these attendees supported the airport but went along to see what bull **** they would try to feed us this time.The same could be said for the last Leigh council public meeting before the big council vote hundreds attended not thousands were are all your objectors?
As for the council not getting views there was plenty of time for any objections to be raised and the response was pathectic.There are a few more houses on the market but this is more because some houses are selling again not because of a mass exodus in that area.If you live in that way I can give you a wave when I pass over head on the first Irish connection flight on the 27th March....
[quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.[/p][/quote]During all the debates about the airport ,I found two instances in Essex where local residents had a strong view against something that was proposed in there area.But the percentage of objection in both cases was over thirty percent per population count , these voices were heard and the proposals refused .I do not agree that it was a foregone conclusion that the airport would happen, if enough resident actually objected to the airports planning proposals the council would have listened . But the % of population object was less than 2% thats why the extention is going ahead the people of this town want it to happen. Are you trying to tell me that over one hundred thousand people thought it was a foregone conclusion the sort of number required for your elected representatives to really sway this vote the other way you really should join SAEN .The best attended SAEN meeting was about 400 people and quite a few of these attendees supported the airport but went along to see what bull **** they would try to feed us this time.The same could be said for the last Leigh council public meeting before the big council vote hundreds attended not thousands were are all your objectors? As for the council not getting views there was plenty of time for any objections to be raised and the response was pathectic.There are a few more houses on the market but this is more because some houses are selling again not because of a mass exodus in that area.If you live in that way I can give you a wave when I pass over head on the first Irish connection flight on the 27th March.... r6keith

6:43pm Sat 5 Feb 11

r6keith says...

'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can. r6keith

6:47pm Sat 5 Feb 11

'V' says...

Rick Jones wrote:
Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote:
Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.
It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door...

People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils.

It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do...
Sorry, but anything that comes through my door addressed 'to the occupier' and not addressed to me, goes straight in the recycling, unopened.

If it had said 'Southend Airport Public Consultation. then I would have looked at it and responded.
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.[/p][/quote]It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door... People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils. It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do...[/p][/quote]Sorry, but anything that comes through my door addressed 'to the occupier' and not addressed to me, goes straight in the recycling, unopened. If it had said 'Southend Airport Public Consultation. then I would have looked at it and responded. 'V'

7:27pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

'V' wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:
Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote: Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.
It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door... People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils. It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do...
Sorry, but anything that comes through my door addressed 'to the occupier' and not addressed to me, goes straight in the recycling, unopened. If it had said 'Southend Airport Public Consultation. then I would have looked at it and responded.
So you only have yourself to blame then dont you, you cant say you did not know about it it was in the Echo the free papers the internet and on here.

You said you chuck out all the "To the occupier" things that come through your door so that £10,000 in cash I put through the door addressed to "The Occupier"...

From what I can remember the consiltaion was a multi page A4 leaflet that was loose.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: Not been a large increase in properties on the market? have a look around the Somerset estate In Westcliff a lot there. And as for most residents supporting the airport sorry but I think it is because a lot of residents thought it was a foregone conclusion and there was no point in objecting to it any way as the council didnt really push to hard on getting the views of everybody.[/p][/quote]It was in Outlook, on the website the consultation documents were sent out twice the the consultation time was extended. What more could the council do take out TV, Radio Newspaper ads, billboards accross the town adverts on trucks driving round, leaflets, aircraft towing banners lous hailers, cinema adverts, knock on every door... People knew about it if they failed to vote an objection then thats their fault and NOT the councils. It's like the people who do not vote an an election then moan about what the Government/council do...[/p][/quote]Sorry, but anything that comes through my door addressed 'to the occupier' and not addressed to me, goes straight in the recycling, unopened. If it had said 'Southend Airport Public Consultation. then I would have looked at it and responded.[/p][/quote]So you only have yourself to blame then dont you, you cant say you did not know about it it was in the Echo the free papers the internet and on here. You said you chuck out all the "To the occupier" things that come through your door so that £10,000 in cash I put through the door addressed to "The Occupier"... From what I can remember the consiltaion was a multi page A4 leaflet that was loose. Rick Jones

8:23pm Sat 5 Feb 11

'V' says...

What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent.

It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts?
What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent. It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts? 'V'

8:41pm Sat 5 Feb 11

jayman says...

please all remember to get involved in a major consultation soon. its called the local election.. and remember the council really will put a little bit of card through your letter box (only because the law tells them to). take it down to the consultation center oh i mean polling station, and join the consultation debate.. Oh i mean vote out your local conservative Councillor. then and only then will your voice be heard. we vote in a representative to listen and to be in tune to local needs and enact the will of the people. not to treat the town like a monopoly board nor to ignore the residents in favor of big business and anti-heritage ideological policies.

i will also offer a codec of council terms

1) consultation -- do what we want by way of asking the lowest common denominator.

2) review -- shred documents and burn the evidence.

3) local business partnership -- bulldoze company premises of businesses not on the preferred list.

4) Anna Waite's department -- ?
please all remember to get involved in a major consultation soon. its called the local election.. and remember the council really will put a little bit of card through your letter box (only because the law tells them to). take it down to the consultation center oh i mean polling station, and join the consultation debate.. Oh i mean vote out your local conservative Councillor. then and only then will your voice be heard. we vote in a representative to listen and to be in tune to local needs and enact the will of the people. not to treat the town like a monopoly board nor to ignore the residents in favor of big business and anti-heritage ideological policies. i will also offer a codec of council terms 1) consultation -- do what we want by way of asking the lowest common denominator. 2) review -- shred documents and burn the evidence. 3) local business partnership -- bulldoze company premises of businesses not on the preferred list. 4) Anna Waite's department -- ? jayman

9:01pm Sat 5 Feb 11

jayman says...

oh and why im at it. if the council want to operate as a self styled cabinet might i suggest that they uphold there Democratic obligation and produce a full manifesto. listing any toxic waste plants, casinos, space centers, petting zoo's, or mountains of there cash they wish to install in the town for the next term. then things wont come as a shock in future. if not then be even more democratic and have an all party council chamber like its supposed to be.
oh and why im at it. if the council want to operate as a self styled cabinet might i suggest that they uphold there Democratic obligation and produce a full manifesto. listing any toxic waste plants, casinos, space centers, petting zoo's, or mountains of there cash they wish to install in the town for the next term. then things wont come as a shock in future. if not then be even more democratic and have an all party council chamber like its supposed to be. jayman

9:38pm Sat 5 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

'V' wrote:
What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent. It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts?
Is it the councils fault you do not get the free papers?

Is it the councils fault you do not buy the echo?

The consultation was extended it was even talked about on this site and you probably commented on it!

Leaflets were avalabe at the civic centre, Tourist Information centre on the pier, the airport, one line (both council and airport websites home pages) why shouls SBC post the leaflets to Rochford? as sar as I knew they are not part of Southend-on-Sea if they had done the like you you and jayman would moan about the cost.

It was not hidden in any way shape or form if you were too lazy to actually do something for yourself instead of expecting for something to do it for you than thats your loss.

Like I said it was on here plenty of times whilst it was going on.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent. It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts?[/p][/quote]Is it the councils fault you do not get the free papers? Is it the councils fault you do not buy the echo? The consultation was extended it was even talked about on this site and you probably commented on it! Leaflets were avalabe at the civic centre, Tourist Information centre on the pier, the airport, one line (both council and airport websites home pages) why shouls SBC post the leaflets to Rochford? as sar as I knew they are not part of Southend-on-Sea if they had done the like you you and jayman would moan about the cost. It was not hidden in any way shape or form if you were too lazy to actually do something for yourself instead of expecting for something to do it for you than thats your loss. Like I said it was on here plenty of times whilst it was going on. Rick Jones

10:39pm Sat 5 Feb 11

jayman says...

Rick Jones wrote:
'V' wrote:
What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent. It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts?
Is it the councils fault you do not get the free papers?

Is it the councils fault you do not buy the echo?

The consultation was extended it was even talked about on this site and you probably commented on it!

Leaflets were avalabe at the civic centre, Tourist Information centre on the pier, the airport, one line (both council and airport websites home pages) why shouls SBC post the leaflets to Rochford? as sar as I knew they are not part of Southend-on-Sea if they had done the like you you and jayman would moan about the cost.

It was not hidden in any way shape or form if you were too lazy to actually do something for yourself instead of expecting for something to do it for you than thats your loss.

Like I said it was on here plenty of times whilst it was going on.
i took part in the what do you think consultation thing online, and i do check the council website like clockwork. I must have missed the consultation in regards to the airport. The council do themselves no favors, have you seen the council minuets and meetings page on the website. its about as user friendly as a hand grenade with a return spring. there are no highlighted agendas to accompany the meeting schedule dates, (just dates) so at a glance there is no indication what the hell is going on in the cabinet meeting. and it doesn't help that most of the consultation meetings are well within working hours so most people cant attend. if they really wanted everyones opinion they should produce a manifesto per term highlighting (in clear and without corporate language and/or circumlocution or vernaculars) to get a mandate from the residents of southend, westcliff, ect
[quote][p][bold]Rick Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: What free papers? We don't get any free papers, and we don't buy the Echo. We only buy one paper, The Independent. It seems to me the council went out of their way to hide the public consultation from the public. If that was not their intention, why didn't they simply mail the consultation, in a council franked envelope labelled 'Southend Airport Expansion Consultation' to every household in the Southend and Rochford districts?[/p][/quote]Is it the councils fault you do not get the free papers? Is it the councils fault you do not buy the echo? The consultation was extended it was even talked about on this site and you probably commented on it! Leaflets were avalabe at the civic centre, Tourist Information centre on the pier, the airport, one line (both council and airport websites home pages) why shouls SBC post the leaflets to Rochford? as sar as I knew they are not part of Southend-on-Sea if they had done the like you you and jayman would moan about the cost. It was not hidden in any way shape or form if you were too lazy to actually do something for yourself instead of expecting for something to do it for you than thats your loss. Like I said it was on here plenty of times whilst it was going on.[/p][/quote]i took part in the what do you think consultation thing online, and i do check the council website like clockwork. I must have missed the consultation in regards to the airport. The council do themselves no favors, have you seen the council minuets and meetings page on the website. its about as user friendly as a hand grenade with a return spring. there are no highlighted agendas to accompany the meeting schedule dates, (just dates) so at a glance there is no indication what the hell is going on in the cabinet meeting. and it doesn't help that most of the consultation meetings are well within working hours so most people cant attend. if they really wanted everyones opinion they should produce a manifesto per term highlighting (in clear and without corporate language and/or circumlocution or vernaculars) to get a mandate from the residents of southend, westcliff, ect jayman

11:28pm Sat 5 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Post number 100!

Goto:-

www.flysouthend2012.
com
click on
The Application... then
Statement of Community Involvement Response:

How much more consultation do we need?
According to the V, jayman etc etc. If they don't get a personal knock on the door, then its not been carried out fully!
If that was the case we would not have got much further than the Industrial revolution.... Sometimes I think they would prefer it if we still lived in the stone age anyway!
.....
The section106 agreement is a demonstration of how the Council listened to the small amount of objections and responded. Once the expensive delaying actions of Laura Millard/Mcdowell/Lol
tara/SAEN members or whatever she is called subsides, the council can get on with the job of formalising the restrictions currently not in force, and the Airport can get on with the business of a controlled expansion. Benefitting the area as a whole.
......
Good night all. ;)
Post number 100! Goto:- www.flysouthend2012. com click on The Application... then Statement of Community Involvement Response: How much more consultation do we need? According to the V, jayman etc etc. If they don't get a personal knock on the door, then its not been carried out fully! If that was the case we would not have got much further than the Industrial revolution.... Sometimes I think they would prefer it if we still lived in the stone age anyway! ..... The section106 agreement is a demonstration of how the Council listened to the small amount of objections and responded. Once the expensive delaying actions of Laura Millard/Mcdowell/Lol tara/SAEN members or whatever she is called subsides, the council can get on with the job of formalising the restrictions currently not in force, and the Airport can get on with the business of a controlled expansion. Benefitting the area as a whole. ...... Good night all. ;) BASILBRUSH

12:18am Sun 6 Feb 11

jayman says...

hmm. i have extracted some of the contents of the assessment from www.flysouthend2012.

com

please pay attention to the bit about ((pre-application)) consultation. also a letter was sent out to community groups and not residents and the airport had a static display.. hardly a open meeting consultation.. my above comment stands about the council codec.

the live meetings took place in 2009
Monday 13th July – The Stables, Leigh on Sea (4pm – 8pm)
• Tuesday 14th July – The Freight House, Rochford (4pm – 8pm)
• Thursday 16th July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm)
• Thursday 23rd July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm)
• Monday 27th July – RBS, Thanet Grange (12pm – 2pm)
• Thursday 30th July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm)
• Thursday 6th August – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm)

hardly outside of working hours and all during working days. this was a ploy to appeal to the council/airport stooges and the lowest common denominator

below is the extract i mentioned

2.3 Statement of Community Involvement Review
Southend Borough Council adopted their Statement of Community Involvement in
November 2007. In it, the council encourages levels of pre-application consultation
but is not necessarily prescriptive in the methods used to engage. Relevant sections
include:
7.5 Where there are known to be potential issues with regard to a proposal, the
Council advises applicants to undertake pre-application consultation with statutory
consultees.
8.2 The Council also welcomes and encourages pre-application discussions with
prospective applicants and their agents, particularly with regard to proposed major
developments.
10.1 The above consultation and public participation procedures apply in respect
of all planning applications received, and generally no specific additional
arrangements are pursued with regard to applications for ‘major’ development,
however this may be defined.
10.2 Nevertheless, in relation to such applications, the Council advises applicants
to undertake pre-application publicity, including the notification of Ward Councillors.
In addition, consultation on planning applications will on rare occasions involve public
meetings and feedback to the Development Control Committee. This will only take
place where a planning application gives rise to a particularly high level of concern
from neighbours or other stakeholders, or otherwise proves to be particularly
contentious.
hmm. i have extracted some of the contents of the assessment from www.flysouthend2012. com please pay attention to the bit about ((pre-application)) consultation. also a letter was sent out to community groups and not residents and the airport had a static display.. hardly a open meeting consultation.. my above comment stands about the council codec. the live meetings took place in 2009 Monday 13th July – The Stables, Leigh on Sea (4pm – 8pm) • Tuesday 14th July – The Freight House, Rochford (4pm – 8pm) • Thursday 16th July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm) • Thursday 23rd July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm) • Monday 27th July – RBS, Thanet Grange (12pm – 2pm) • Thursday 30th July – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm) • Thursday 6th August – Southend Airport (3pm – 8pm) hardly outside of working hours and all during working days. this was a ploy to appeal to the council/airport stooges and the lowest common denominator below is the extract i mentioned 2.3 Statement of Community Involvement Review Southend Borough Council adopted their Statement of Community Involvement in November 2007. In it, the council encourages levels of pre-application consultation but is not necessarily prescriptive in the methods used to engage. Relevant sections include: 7.5 Where there are known to be potential issues with regard to a proposal, the Council advises applicants to undertake pre-application consultation with statutory consultees. 8.2 The Council also welcomes and encourages pre-application discussions with prospective applicants and their agents, particularly with regard to proposed major developments. 10.1 The above consultation and public participation procedures apply in respect of all planning applications received, and generally no specific additional arrangements are pursued with regard to applications for ‘major’ development, however this may be defined. 10.2 Nevertheless, in relation to such applications, the Council advises applicants to undertake pre-application publicity, including the notification of Ward Councillors. In addition, consultation on planning applications will on rare occasions involve public meetings and feedback to the Development Control Committee. This will only take place where a planning application gives rise to a particularly high level of concern from neighbours or other stakeholders, or otherwise proves to be particularly contentious. jayman

12:45am Sun 6 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

I said goto www.flysouthend2012.
com... Meaning read the link fully.... Not pick tiny portions of it and try to manipulate and fit your poorly executed argument Jayman. That's what SAEN do........! Then again, SAEN don't allow people to question them.. At least you do. ;)
....
Anyway Jayman, as always a pleasure, but I really need to hit the hay.
I said goto www.flysouthend2012. com... Meaning read the link fully.... Not pick tiny portions of it and try to manipulate and fit your poorly executed argument Jayman. That's what SAEN do........! Then again, SAEN don't allow people to question them.. At least you do. ;) .... Anyway Jayman, as always a pleasure, but I really need to hit the hay. BASILBRUSH

11:09am Sun 6 Feb 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
I said goto www.flysouthend2012.

com... Meaning read the link fully.... Not pick tiny portions of it and try to manipulate and fit your poorly executed argument Jayman. That's what SAEN do........! Then again, SAEN don't allow people to question them.. At least you do. ;)
....
Anyway Jayman, as always a pleasure, but I really need to hit the hay.
i did. i found a major flaw and highlighted it. ether its a case of massive incompetence by the consultation/fixing company or its as i suspect (a one sided PR exercise)
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: I said goto www.flysouthend2012. com... Meaning read the link fully.... Not pick tiny portions of it and try to manipulate and fit your poorly executed argument Jayman. That's what SAEN do........! Then again, SAEN don't allow people to question them.. At least you do. ;) .... Anyway Jayman, as always a pleasure, but I really need to hit the hay.[/p][/quote]i did. i found a major flaw and highlighted it. ether its a case of massive incompetence by the consultation/fixing company or its as i suspect (a one sided PR exercise) jayman

12:20pm Sun 6 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

No you haven't. You have just picked one of the many listed ways (demonstrated in the link) in which the public were consulted.... 8pm to most is considered outside normal working hours.
You fail to mention the above dates were manned for people to ask questions, and that the static display ran alongside this at the Airport itself for a longer period of time.
You also fail to mention the advertisements in the media and all the interested groups were informed (including SAEN), so that they could publicise it to their members the public consultations.
You fail to mention the dedicated website set up, the information leaflets put out and the 0800 comments line also set up.
You also fail to mention the 'scoping workshops' and all the groups invited, along with the list of all that attended (SAEN included).
The original JAAP consultation was delayed, and even more leaflets and adverts put out because SAEN weren't happy, and the Section106 agreement drawn up following the small amount of concerned responses.
....
With logic like yours, its no wonder the Judge dismissed the first application with no case to answer.
......
This is not building a second runway, or allowing anything larger to use Southend than already does. They will have passengers onboard though.
It is improving existing facilities, and at the same time we, as residents get a chance to control the expansion and kickstart the dwindling economic fortunes of this town.
...
Jayman, maybe you aren't affiliated to any group, but you logic is on a PAR with Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN).
Unless you happen to be living in a bubble, then you would have to be pretty exceptional not to have known anything of the plans (originally published around 1997).
Genuinely concerned people would made the effort to attend one of the well publicised meetings, or contact the Airport directly by phone, or look it up in the internet.
...
V you say you don't buy the Echo citing that as one of the reasons you may not have known about the consultations... Yet you have been posting on the Echo website regarding the extension from the start.... This proves that the Echo reaches those that don't even buy it!
No you haven't. You have just picked one of the many listed ways (demonstrated in the link) in which the public were consulted.... 8pm to most is considered outside normal working hours. You fail to mention the above dates were manned for people to ask questions, and that the static display ran alongside this at the Airport itself for a longer period of time. You also fail to mention the advertisements in the media and all the interested groups were informed (including SAEN), so that they could publicise it to their members the public consultations. You fail to mention the dedicated website set up, the information leaflets put out and the 0800 comments line also set up. You also fail to mention the 'scoping workshops' and all the groups invited, along with the list of all that attended (SAEN included). The original JAAP consultation was delayed, and even more leaflets and adverts put out because SAEN weren't happy, and the Section106 agreement drawn up following the small amount of concerned responses. .... With logic like yours, its no wonder the Judge dismissed the first application with no case to answer. ...... This is not building a second runway, or allowing anything larger to use Southend than already does. They will have passengers onboard though. It is improving existing facilities, and at the same time we, as residents get a chance to control the expansion and kickstart the dwindling economic fortunes of this town. ... Jayman, maybe you aren't affiliated to any group, but you logic is on a PAR with Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN). Unless you happen to be living in a bubble, then you would have to be pretty exceptional not to have known anything of the plans (originally published around 1997). Genuinely concerned people would made the effort to attend one of the well publicised meetings, or contact the Airport directly by phone, or look it up in the internet. ... V you say you don't buy the Echo citing that as one of the reasons you may not have known about the consultations... Yet you have been posting on the Echo website regarding the extension from the start.... This proves that the Echo reaches those that don't even buy it! BASILBRUSH

2:58pm Sun 6 Feb 11

heartbeat says...

I would have thought an awful lot of the Southend area was "blighted" already! Surely the prospect of more prosperity will reduce the amount of "blight" for the vast majority.
I would have thought an awful lot of the Southend area was "blighted" already! Surely the prospect of more prosperity will reduce the amount of "blight" for the vast majority. heartbeat

6:02pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
No you haven't. You have just picked one of the many listed ways (demonstrated in the link) in which the public were consulted.... 8pm to most is considered outside normal working hours. You fail to mention the above dates were manned for people to ask questions, and that the static display ran alongside this at the Airport itself for a longer period of time. You also fail to mention the advertisements in the media and all the interested groups were informed (including SAEN), so that they could publicise it to their members the public consultations. You fail to mention the dedicated website set up, the information leaflets put out and the 0800 comments line also set up. You also fail to mention the 'scoping workshops' and all the groups invited, along with the list of all that attended (SAEN included). The original JAAP consultation was delayed, and even more leaflets and adverts put out because SAEN weren't happy, and the Section106 agreement drawn up following the small amount of concerned responses. .... With logic like yours, its no wonder the Judge dismissed the first application with no case to answer. ...... This is not building a second runway, or allowing anything larger to use Southend than already does. They will have passengers onboard though. It is improving existing facilities, and at the same time we, as residents get a chance to control the expansion and kickstart the dwindling economic fortunes of this town. ... Jayman, maybe you aren't affiliated to any group, but you logic is on a PAR with Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN). Unless you happen to be living in a bubble, then you would have to be pretty exceptional not to have known anything of the plans (originally published around 1997). Genuinely concerned people would made the effort to attend one of the well publicised meetings, or contact the Airport directly by phone, or look it up in the internet. ... V you say you don't buy the Echo citing that as one of the reasons you may not have known about the consultations... Yet you have been posting on the Echo website regarding the extension from the start.... This proves that the Echo reaches those that don't even buy it!
Very well said, I work shifts and am on call 24/7/365 (apart from days actually booked off) I was able to attend one of the meetings, I saw the consultation on the council websites home page, the airports and it was advertised on this very site.

As basil said V you have commented on the subject when ever its been in this site so if you missed it prehaps you should go to specsavers!

Jayman Anyone can pick on on epoint so I will wny is it that the protesters web site staes A plane low over your house every 10 minutes whilst the leaflets say every 10minutes?
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: No you haven't. You have just picked one of the many listed ways (demonstrated in the link) in which the public were consulted.... 8pm to most is considered outside normal working hours. You fail to mention the above dates were manned for people to ask questions, and that the static display ran alongside this at the Airport itself for a longer period of time. You also fail to mention the advertisements in the media and all the interested groups were informed (including SAEN), so that they could publicise it to their members the public consultations. You fail to mention the dedicated website set up, the information leaflets put out and the 0800 comments line also set up. You also fail to mention the 'scoping workshops' and all the groups invited, along with the list of all that attended (SAEN included). The original JAAP consultation was delayed, and even more leaflets and adverts put out because SAEN weren't happy, and the Section106 agreement drawn up following the small amount of concerned responses. .... With logic like yours, its no wonder the Judge dismissed the first application with no case to answer. ...... This is not building a second runway, or allowing anything larger to use Southend than already does. They will have passengers onboard though. It is improving existing facilities, and at the same time we, as residents get a chance to control the expansion and kickstart the dwindling economic fortunes of this town. ... Jayman, maybe you aren't affiliated to any group, but you logic is on a PAR with Denis Walker (spokesman for SAEN). Unless you happen to be living in a bubble, then you would have to be pretty exceptional not to have known anything of the plans (originally published around 1997). Genuinely concerned people would made the effort to attend one of the well publicised meetings, or contact the Airport directly by phone, or look it up in the internet. ... V you say you don't buy the Echo citing that as one of the reasons you may not have known about the consultations... Yet you have been posting on the Echo website regarding the extension from the start.... This proves that the Echo reaches those that don't even buy it![/p][/quote]Very well said, I work shifts and am on call 24/7/365 (apart from days actually booked off) I was able to attend one of the meetings, I saw the consultation on the council websites home page, the airports and it was advertised on this very site. As basil said V you have commented on the subject when ever its been in this site so if you missed it prehaps you should go to specsavers! Jayman Anyone can pick on on epoint so I will wny is it that the protesters web site staes A plane low over your house every 10 minutes whilst the leaflets say every 10minutes? Rick Jones

6:46pm Sun 6 Feb 11

'V' says...

r6keith wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.
EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…'

They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it.

As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet. 'V'

6:58pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Thames Gateway says...

Isn't it about time that we heard what "loltara" has to say about this news item? I'm sure she could at least clear up whether the other Laura Millard is anything to do with her or not!
Isn't it about time that we heard what "loltara" has to say about this news item? I'm sure she could at least clear up whether the other Laura Millard is anything to do with her or not! Thames Gateway

7:08pm Sun 6 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.
EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.
Half a dozen armchair warriors... What about the 1200 people who work on the airport? Bet they all support it expanding.

Larger aircraft you are only going to see are the current types that operate out at present, only this time they will have passengers onboard.

You are NOT going to see 747's 767's 777's or any of the large airbus aircraft comming in.

Scaremongering is a tactic used by those that do not like the truth.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.[/p][/quote]Half a dozen armchair warriors... What about the 1200 people who work on the airport? Bet they all support it expanding. Larger aircraft you are only going to see are the current types that operate out at present, only this time they will have passengers onboard. You are NOT going to see 747's 767's 777's or any of the large airbus aircraft comming in. Scaremongering is a tactic used by those that do not like the truth. Rick Jones

8:59am Mon 7 Feb 11

r6keith says...

'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.
EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.
V if you live in this area and have not got your head stuck in the sand , with all the media, action group,airport company and forum promotion of this runway extension either for or against no one could claim they did not know what was going on and if the had an objection to the proposals find somewhere to have it heard. During all the consultation the airport has not tried to hide or disguise what it wants and plans for the future.We have even had council elections since the support vote for the airport extension with the anti airport group SAEN telling us how heads would role at the local elections . Did it make any difference NO.
[quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.[/p][/quote]V if you live in this area and have not got your head stuck in the sand , with all the media, action group,airport company and forum promotion of this runway extension either for or against no one could claim they did not know what was going on and if the had an objection to the proposals find somewhere to have it heard. During all the consultation the airport has not tried to hide or disguise what it wants and plans for the future.We have even had council elections since the support vote for the airport extension with the anti airport group SAEN telling us how heads would role at the local elections . Did it make any difference NO. r6keith

9:39am Mon 7 Feb 11

jayman says...

r6keith wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote:
'V' wrote:
r6keith wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .
"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.
no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.
EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.
V if you live in this area and have not got your head stuck in the sand , with all the media, action group,airport company and forum promotion of this runway extension either for or against no one could claim they did not know what was going on and if the had an objection to the proposals find somewhere to have it heard. During all the consultation the airport has not tried to hide or disguise what it wants and plans for the future.We have even had council elections since the support vote for the airport extension with the anti airport group SAEN telling us how heads would role at the local elections . Did it make any difference NO.
yes it did. the conservatives took a hit at the election with lower votes per share.
--------------------
-

its just that southend has a hard core con voting base that would vote in a goat if put up for election..

we will see soon.. wont we
[quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]'V'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]r6keith[/bold] wrote: V do you live and breath in this area. Apart from attendees at SAEN meetings most residents support the airport.The few with concerns usually raised by SAEN propaganda feel better about the airport once thay have a truer picture of whats going on explained to them. For instance . Property prices will plumet under the flight path . Truth since the permission has been granted the prices have only followed national trends ,there has also not been a mass increase in more houses on the market under the flight path .[/p][/quote]"most residents support the airport" That's a very bold claim. Have you asked everyone? The resident's of Leigh, Westcliff, Chalkwell, Southchurch, Shoebury, Rochford, Wakering? Have you? No you haven't, and neither has Southend Council.[/p][/quote]no I havent asked everyone, but in an indirect way the council did , less than 2% objected , and apart from SAEN and Leigh council poorly attended meetings I havent encountered any object , and trust me I promote the airport and the extention when ever I can.[/p][/quote]EXACTLY. 'In an INDIRECT way the council did…' They didn't have the courage to actually ask people outright 'Do you want the local airport expanded and more freguent and larger flights overhead', because they know d@mned well the public would tell them where to stick it. As I said, the ONLY people I have seen, or heard, supporting the airport expansion are half a dozen armchair warriors on thei website, and SBC's Tory cabinet.[/p][/quote]V if you live in this area and have not got your head stuck in the sand , with all the media, action group,airport company and forum promotion of this runway extension either for or against no one could claim they did not know what was going on and if the had an objection to the proposals find somewhere to have it heard. During all the consultation the airport has not tried to hide or disguise what it wants and plans for the future.We have even had council elections since the support vote for the airport extension with the anti airport group SAEN telling us how heads would role at the local elections . Did it make any difference NO.[/p][/quote]yes it did. the conservatives took a hit at the election with lower votes per share. -------------------- - its just that southend has a hard core con voting base that would vote in a goat if put up for election.. we will see soon.. wont we jayman

2:04pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

They might have lost votes but won MORE seats...

Sorry did you forget that or just could not bring yourself to adnit it.
They might have lost votes but won MORE seats... Sorry did you forget that or just could not bring yourself to adnit it. Rick Jones

2:50pm Mon 7 Feb 11

'V' says...

It's going to be different now. People have had a taste of what a Tory government is like: 10,000 police jobs cut, prisons being closed, judges being told to send fewer criminals to prison, unemployment up, publicly owned English forests up for sale to the highest bidder, the NHS under attack, English students facing enormous debt if they want to go to Uni, massive redundancies, cuts in front line services for vulnerable people… and all the while multi-millionaire Cameron and multi-millionaire Osborne telling us 'We're all in it together...'

Yes, it is going to be VERY different this time.
It's going to be different now. People have had a taste of what a Tory government is like: 10,000 police jobs cut, prisons being closed, judges being told to send fewer criminals to prison, unemployment up, publicly owned English forests up for sale to the highest bidder, the NHS under attack, English students facing enormous debt if they want to go to Uni, massive redundancies, cuts in front line services for vulnerable people… and all the while multi-millionaire Cameron and multi-millionaire Osborne telling us 'We're all in it together...' Yes, it is going to be VERY different this time. 'V'

2:58pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Broadwaywatch says...

I have just returned from Whitehaven Cumbria and passed by the Stobart Deport; it’s massive. To be fair it’s not situated in one of the prettiest parts of Cumbria and it’s completely accessible without hindrance of a built up area as we have here in Southend. It is also relatively near Carlisle Airport. I do truly fear for this our area here and its future where I was bred and born and have lived all my life.
When, many months ago I attended a meeting in Leigh regarding the airport. I asked Mr Alistair Welch, representative of Stobarts and the airport if it was the intention to link up their freight department with the (to be built) new freight/Terminal docks in the Grays area. Mr Welch gave a categorical NO. Taking the answer to have been an honest one I now question as to where Stobarts storage deport in the Southend area is to be and from what road is it to be accessed? Is it to be contained on the airport its self; if so where? Extra land to the north, which used to be a delightful wildflower meadow, seemingly was quietly sold off to the airport some time ago. Perhaps there may be an intention to use this side of the airport for such a facility with access using Aviation Way vie the A127.
Make no mistake the A127 still has potential for further widening. In the sixties, the garden frontage of houses at Kent Elms where subject to a council compulsory purchase order to facilitate even at that time, the widening of that said road. As far as I can ascertain, such an option is still open. A further compulsory purchase order, if made this time for a row of private dwellings, a smallholding or two and a little park would give a clear run as far as the so called Strawberry Fields roundabout, where once indeed there were strawberry fields and also lush orchards. No, I’m not putting such ideas into the planners head. It’s an idea that I am led to believe has been on the drawing board for some fifty years and I believe will rise again like the phoenix from the fire in the not to distant future.
Now having jogged my ‘little grey cells’ I recall that also back in the sixties that there were plans to extend the north/south cross runway. It even got as far as to staking out, with blue wooden stakes, the area north of the airport. Well I remember them for when a boy I used to balance on them. The plans for that proposed extension to a runway where eventually turned down, so I understand, not just because of wind direction but foremost because of the safety issue of the flight path being directly over Southend and strong objections from Rochford Hundred Golf Club which borders the northern boundary of the airport.
Of cause any further ideas were later fully scuppered with the building of the retail park at Warners Bridge. Just expressing my thoughts…that’s all!
I have just returned from Whitehaven Cumbria and passed by the Stobart Deport; it’s massive. To be fair it’s not situated in one of the prettiest parts of Cumbria and it’s completely accessible without hindrance of a built up area as we have here in Southend. It is also relatively near Carlisle Airport. I do truly fear for this our area here and its future where I was bred and born and have lived all my life. When, many months ago I attended a meeting in Leigh regarding the airport. I asked Mr Alistair Welch, representative of Stobarts and the airport if it was the intention to link up their freight department with the (to be built) new freight/Terminal docks in the Grays area. Mr Welch gave a categorical NO. Taking the answer to have been an honest one I now question as to where Stobarts storage deport in the Southend area is to be and from what road is it to be accessed? Is it to be contained on the airport its self; if so where? Extra land to the north, which used to be a delightful wildflower meadow, seemingly was quietly sold off to the airport some time ago. Perhaps there may be an intention to use this side of the airport for such a facility with access using Aviation Way vie the A127. Make no mistake the A127 still has potential for further widening. In the sixties, the garden frontage of houses at Kent Elms where subject to a council compulsory purchase order to facilitate even at that time, the widening of that said road. As far as I can ascertain, such an option is still open. A further compulsory purchase order, if made this time for a row of private dwellings, a smallholding or two and a little park would give a clear run as far as the so called Strawberry Fields roundabout, where once indeed there were strawberry fields and also lush orchards. No, I’m not putting such ideas into the planners head. It’s an idea that I am led to believe has been on the drawing board for some fifty years and I believe will rise again like the phoenix from the fire in the not to distant future. Now having jogged my ‘little grey cells’ I recall that also back in the sixties that there were plans to extend the north/south cross runway. It even got as far as to staking out, with blue wooden stakes, the area north of the airport. Well I remember them for when a boy I used to balance on them. The plans for that proposed extension to a runway where eventually turned down, so I understand, not just because of wind direction but foremost because of the safety issue of the flight path being directly over Southend and strong objections from Rochford Hundred Golf Club which borders the northern boundary of the airport. Of cause any further ideas were later fully scuppered with the building of the retail park at Warners Bridge. Just expressing my thoughts…that’s all! Broadwaywatch

3:34pm Mon 7 Feb 11

r6keith says...

Broadwaywatch. Just one little question . What storage depot ?? Who mentioned a storage depot ?
Broadwaywatch. Just one little question . What storage depot ?? Who mentioned a storage depot ? r6keith

4:00pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Broadwaywatch says...

Are not Stobarts dealing in freight as well passengers from Southend?
Are not Stobarts dealing in freight as well passengers from Southend? Broadwaywatch

4:47pm Mon 7 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Are not Stobarts dealing in freight as well passengers from Southend?
Broadwaywatch, Please read www.flysouthend2012.
com, and click on The Application... then
Statement of Community Involvement Response... Scroll through the long document outlining the consultation process:

"The proposed improvements will not allow wide bodied or longhaul jet aircraft that are used to transport the majority of cargo, to use the airport.
There are no plans for a major Stobart Distribution Centre to be developed at Southend. Quite simply, the location would mean too many empty loads and would not support such an operation due to the ‘dead leg’ nature of the trip to Southend from the M25."

This is in the Issued raised section of the leaflet which was distributed and available at the consultations.
They have also said it openly during previous interviews.

The Section106 agreement (which is only linked to the Extension) also restricts freight to 10% of the 53300 movement cap.

'Niche' freight yes, but nothing on the scale you or SAEN are suggesting.

Did you know that the freight shed at Southend is now closed? Stobart have owned the Airport for a couple of years, yet there hasn't been any noticeable increase in freight activity or Stobart trucks at the Airport.
Members of SAEN are still convinced they are going to build a railway siding!!
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: Are not Stobarts dealing in freight as well passengers from Southend?[/p][/quote]Broadwaywatch, Please read www.flysouthend2012. com, and click on The Application... then Statement of Community Involvement Response... Scroll through the long document outlining the consultation process: "The proposed improvements will not allow wide bodied or longhaul jet aircraft that are used to transport the majority of cargo, to use the airport. There are no plans for a major Stobart Distribution Centre to be developed at Southend. Quite simply, the location would mean too many empty loads and would not support such an operation due to the ‘dead leg’ nature of the trip to Southend from the M25." This is in the Issued raised section of the leaflet which was distributed and available at the consultations. They have also said it openly during previous interviews. The Section106 agreement (which is only linked to the Extension) also restricts freight to 10% of the 53300 movement cap. 'Niche' freight yes, but nothing on the scale you or SAEN are suggesting. Did you know that the freight shed at Southend is now closed? Stobart have owned the Airport for a couple of years, yet there hasn't been any noticeable increase in freight activity or Stobart trucks at the Airport. Members of SAEN are still convinced they are going to build a railway siding!! BASILBRUSH

4:59pm Mon 7 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

To add to the above:-

Also talen from the website:
Will Southend airport become a cargo hub with a new lorry depot?
No. There are no plans for a major Stobart Distribution Centre to be developed at Southend, not least because it would not be economic.

........
Alastair Welch, managing director at the airport, said: “The airport already operates a niche cargo operation for small high value goods from Europe.

“We did not and never will have the capacity for large cargo or long-haul cargo.


Taken from an article on The Echo website, 06 December 2008.
To add to the above:- Also talen from the website: Will Southend airport become a cargo hub with a new lorry depot? No. There are no plans for a major Stobart Distribution Centre to be developed at Southend, not least because it would not be economic. ........ Alastair Welch, managing director at the airport, said: “The airport already operates a niche cargo operation for small high value goods from Europe. “We did not and never will have the capacity for large cargo or long-haul cargo. Taken from an article on The Echo website, 06 December 2008. BASILBRUSH

5:10pm Mon 7 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:-

http://www.handyship
pingguide.com/shippi
ng-news/truck-groups
-face-disaster-after
-freight-tonnages-an
d-rates-fall_2185

This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future.
And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:- http://www.handyship pingguide.com/shippi ng-news/truck-groups -face-disaster-after -freight-tonnages-an d-rates-fall_2185 This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future. BASILBRUSH

5:35pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Broadwaywatch says...

I thank you all for your concern regarding my thoughts.
In reality I suppose none of us really know what the future may bring so in the meantime I just hope that you and the information that you have directed me to proves to remain true. Thank you all once again for your time and effort. Sincerly meant.
I thank you all for your concern regarding my thoughts. In reality I suppose none of us really know what the future may bring so in the meantime I just hope that you and the information that you have directed me to proves to remain true. Thank you all once again for your time and effort. Sincerly meant. Broadwaywatch

8:03pm Mon 7 Feb 11

318 says...

The airport is turning Orange !
The airport is turning Orange ! 318

10:49pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

318 wrote:
The airport is turning Orange !
Easy there old boy...
[quote][p][bold]318[/bold] wrote: The airport is turning Orange ![/p][/quote]Easy there old boy... Rick Jones

11:31pm Mon 7 Feb 11

Nebs says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:-

http://www.handyship

pingguide.com/shippi

ng-news/truck-groups

-face-disaster-after

-freight-tonnages-an

d-rates-fall_2185

This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future.
What is the groups opinion on the possibility of 60 ton (or even 90 ton, three trailer) lorries from Europe being allowed on our roads?
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:- http://www.handyship pingguide.com/shippi ng-news/truck-groups -face-disaster-after -freight-tonnages-an d-rates-fall_2185 This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future.[/p][/quote]What is the groups opinion on the possibility of 60 ton (or even 90 ton, three trailer) lorries from Europe being allowed on our roads? Nebs

12:17am Tue 8 Feb 11

heartbeat says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
I thank you all for your concern regarding my thoughts.
In reality I suppose none of us really know what the future may bring so in the meantime I just hope that you and the information that you have directed me to proves to remain true. Thank you all once again for your time and effort. Sincerly meant.
How nice it is to read such a polite response! Civility rules, ok!
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: I thank you all for your concern regarding my thoughts. In reality I suppose none of us really know what the future may bring so in the meantime I just hope that you and the information that you have directed me to proves to remain true. Thank you all once again for your time and effort. Sincerly meant.[/p][/quote]How nice it is to read such a polite response! Civility rules, ok! heartbeat

1:18am Tue 8 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Nebs wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote: And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:- http://www.handyship pingguide.com/shippi ng-news/truck-groups -face-disaster-after -freight-tonnages-an d-rates-fall_2185 This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future.
What is the groups opinion on the possibility of 60 ton (or even 90 ton, three trailer) lorries from Europe being allowed on our roads?
Personally i beleve they should be subject to the same regulations as our own. When in Rome etc.
....
heartbeat, I agree.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: And finally to put the Freight depot conspiracy theorists to bed:- http://www.handyship pingguide.com/shippi ng-news/truck-groups -face-disaster-after -freight-tonnages-an d-rates-fall_2185 This article highlights that Stobart Group are diversifying, to protect the groups future.[/p][/quote]What is the groups opinion on the possibility of 60 ton (or even 90 ton, three trailer) lorries from Europe being allowed on our roads?[/p][/quote]Personally i beleve they should be subject to the same regulations as our own. When in Rome etc. .... heartbeat, I agree. BASILBRUSH

5:42pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Last Poster says...

I have felt for a long time that it is a shame that the South east to north west runway closed. I suppose there is no way that this runway could be ressurrected and extended? I say this in total ignorance as to whether that is possible or what, but it did have a second runway once I am sure! Thoughts please?
I have felt for a long time that it is a shame that the South east to north west runway closed. I suppose there is no way that this runway could be ressurrected and extended? I say this in total ignorance as to whether that is possible or what, but it did have a second runway once I am sure! Thoughts please? Last Poster

6:38pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Rick Jones says...

Last Poster wrote:
I have felt for a long time that it is a shame that the South east to north west runway closed. I suppose there is no way that this runway could be ressurrected and extended? I say this in total ignorance as to whether that is possible or what, but it did have a second runway once I am sure! Thoughts please?
Warners Bridge and a retail estate ate issues as the the stream and a golf course at the other end
[quote][p][bold]Last Poster[/bold] wrote: I have felt for a long time that it is a shame that the South east to north west runway closed. I suppose there is no way that this runway could be ressurrected and extended? I say this in total ignorance as to whether that is possible or what, but it did have a second runway once I am sure! Thoughts please?[/p][/quote]Warners Bridge and a retail estate ate issues as the the stream and a golf course at the other end Rick Jones

8:08pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff says...

I am glad my comments set of such a long list of replies,but are we all really that naive do we all really believe everything that big business ie Stobarts or Southend Council tell us ??
I am glad my comments set of such a long list of replies,but are we all really that naive do we all really believe everything that big business ie Stobarts or Southend Council tell us ?? Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff

8:45pm Tue 8 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote:
I am glad my comments set of such a long list of replies,but are we all really that naive do we all really believe everything that big business ie Stobarts or Southend Council tell us ??
Thats the beauty of the internet. You can find out so much information that will help back up or debunk the information given.
More importantly, you can debunk the scaremongering and lies that SAEN pump out on a daily basis.
Remember the Airport had to provide consultation documents from various sources (Defra included).
Challenge what is presented absolutely, but if you choose not to believe anything big business or Councils say, then watch the area deteriorate even further.
So in essence, based on my research throughout this, yes I do believe the information that has presented by the Airport and the council.
The Government and now a High court judge also do.
[quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: I am glad my comments set of such a long list of replies,but are we all really that naive do we all really believe everything that big business ie Stobarts or Southend Council tell us ??[/p][/quote]Thats the beauty of the internet. You can find out so much information that will help back up or debunk the information given. More importantly, you can debunk the scaremongering and lies that SAEN pump out on a daily basis. Remember the Airport had to provide consultation documents from various sources (Defra included). Challenge what is presented absolutely, but if you choose not to believe anything big business or Councils say, then watch the area deteriorate even further. So in essence, based on my research throughout this, yes I do believe the information that has presented by the Airport and the council. The Government and now a High court judge also do. BASILBRUSH

9:08pm Tue 8 Feb 11

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff says...

BASILBRUSH
I take your point but I would like think I do challenge what is presented and of course I agree with a lot of the decision making that is done on our behalf but I am still concerned about how easy it is for them to change the goalposts once everything is up and running and all the fuss has died down.!
BASILBRUSH I take your point but I would like think I do challenge what is presented and of course I agree with a lot of the decision making that is done on our behalf but I am still concerned about how easy it is for them to change the goalposts once everything is up and running and all the fuss has died down.! Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff

11:23pm Tue 8 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Keep On Smiling,

Thats fair enough, but remember without the extension there are little or no Goalposts. They could operate as many flights at night and day, regardless of type. Stobart (thankfully) have invested a lot into Southends little Airport already, and will naturally want a return on the investment. Thats not scaremongering, its common sense.
With the extension, they will have to comply with the section106 agreement and whatever is agreed with relation to the Lease. At the same time we (Southend and surrounding area) reap the economic benefits. SAEN are potentially holding up discussions between the Council and the Airport with the JR application at yours and mine expense.

To move the goal posts later would require new applications and public consultations (assuming the Airport would need to change anything).
It 'appears' that the area is for controlled expansion. That attitude could change if they tried to move the goal posts further down the line.
So Personally, I'm confident that controlled expansion proposed gives us the best of both worlds, with enough protections in place.
Keep On Smiling, Thats fair enough, but remember without the extension there are little or no Goalposts. They could operate as many flights at night and day, regardless of type. Stobart (thankfully) have invested a lot into Southends little Airport already, and will naturally want a return on the investment. Thats not scaremongering, its common sense. With the extension, they will have to comply with the section106 agreement and whatever is agreed with relation to the Lease. At the same time we (Southend and surrounding area) reap the economic benefits. SAEN are potentially holding up discussions between the Council and the Airport with the JR application at yours and mine expense. To move the goal posts later would require new applications and public consultations (assuming the Airport would need to change anything). It 'appears' that the area is for controlled expansion. That attitude could change if they tried to move the goal posts further down the line. So Personally, I'm confident that controlled expansion proposed gives us the best of both worlds, with enough protections in place. BASILBRUSH

7:56am Wed 9 Feb 11

Norfolk says...

Keep on Smiling
Are you suggesting then that Stobarts would deliberately flout the conditions of the planning consent? They are a FTSE 250 listed public company so they are going to be most careful that they don't do any such thing and, anyway, why should they? They have want they want: the opportunity to diversify their business so they are not totally reliant on freight transport or do you even doubt that is true? If so just look at other areas of activity they are getting into such as biomass.
I honestly don't think it's a case of others being naive because the background information and evidence is out there on the internet for anyone to find, but it's more of case of your entrenched cynicism that big business or the Council can never do anything good for the area.
Keep on Smiling Are you suggesting then that Stobarts would deliberately flout the conditions of the planning consent? They are a FTSE 250 listed public company so they are going to be most careful that they don't do any such thing and, anyway, why should they? They have want they want: the opportunity to diversify their business so they are not totally reliant on freight transport or do you even doubt that is true? If so just look at other areas of activity they are getting into such as biomass. I honestly don't think it's a case of others being naive because the background information and evidence is out there on the internet for anyone to find, but it's more of case of your entrenched cynicism that big business or the Council can never do anything good for the area. Norfolk

12:29pm Wed 9 Feb 11

r6keith says...

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff wrote:
BASILBRUSH I take your point but I would like think I do challenge what is presented and of course I agree with a lot of the decision making that is done on our behalf but I am still concerned about how easy it is for them to change the goalposts once everything is up and running and all the fuss has died down.!
Have I missed something here ? who moved the goal posts? if so whom and where from and too......
once the details of the lease agreement are finalised which have been on hold due to someone trying to take out a court injunction against the extension permission. I am sure the airport operator Stobarts will have to adhere too.
[quote][p][bold]Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff[/bold] wrote: BASILBRUSH I take your point but I would like think I do challenge what is presented and of course I agree with a lot of the decision making that is done on our behalf but I am still concerned about how easy it is for them to change the goalposts once everything is up and running and all the fuss has died down.![/p][/quote]Have I missed something here ? who moved the goal posts? if so whom and where from and too...... once the details of the lease agreement are finalised which have been on hold due to someone trying to take out a court injunction against the extension permission. I am sure the airport operator Stobarts will have to adhere too. r6keith

12:43pm Wed 9 Feb 11

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff says...

Norfolk
Cynical no
concerned what is happening in the town yes.
You obviously are deeply entrenched in your own views.
Norfolk Cynical no concerned what is happening in the town yes. You obviously are deeply entrenched in your own views. Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff

12:04am Thu 10 Feb 11

BASILBRUSH says...

SAEN are now going to an Oral hearing. Not unexpected, but the saga continues at tax payers expense.
Another judge will look at it, and and throw it out.
SAEN are now going to an Oral hearing. Not unexpected, but the saga continues at tax payers expense. Another judge will look at it, and and throw it out. BASILBRUSH

7:46am Thu 10 Feb 11

Norfolk says...

Keep on Smiling
The only thing I'm "deeply entrenched" in is researching the facts to see if they support some of the wilder claims on here and on SAEN's website. There was nothing in my last post which is not fact, so I'm not actually expressing a "view" at all, other than that I think you are a confirmed cynic.
Keep on Smiling The only thing I'm "deeply entrenched" in is researching the facts to see if they support some of the wilder claims on here and on SAEN's website. There was nothing in my last post which is not fact, so I'm not actually expressing a "view" at all, other than that I think you are a confirmed cynic. Norfolk

10:55am Thu 10 Feb 11

Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff says...

Norfolk

You are entitled to think that I am a cynic fine I accept that although I don't agree with it but I do think its such a shame that anyone with a differing point of view whatever it may be has to have a label put on them.
Norfolk You are entitled to think that I am a cynic fine I accept that although I don't agree with it but I do think its such a shame that anyone with a differing point of view whatever it may be has to have a label put on them. Keep On Smiling. Of Westcliff

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