Updated: Bigger airport means 'more noise for Leigh' (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Updated: Bigger airport means 'more noise for Leigh'
7:00am Friday 19th September 2008 in
LEIGH will bear the brunt of noise and pollution from the proposed expansion of Southend Airport, a new campaign group has claimed.
More than 200 people attended a meeting organised by the local branch of Friends of the Earth to draw up battle lines against the expansion, and to form a new committee to fight it.
The meeting heard the expansion of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane would mean larger aircraft beginning their descent sooner to the longer runway, coming in lower over areas like Leigh, which are on the flight path.
The larger airport, which could mean the demolition of some houses in the area, is expected to cater for two million passengers a year, which equates to 40 flights a day.
It was claimed by the time aircraft reach the area of Eastwoodbury Lane, near the Borough Combination Ground and Nestuda Way, they will be very close to the ground.
But while there are restrictions on night passenger flights, there are none on night freight flights.
John Stewart, from Airport Watch, who was invited to the meeting to advise the campaigners on the best way to fight the proposals, said the aircraft “will be landing lower and there will be a lot more noise for Leigh”.
He added: “The question to ask is whether there is a market for passenger flights from Southend.
“My fear is it may not be passengers they are going for. It may be freight and, if so, it might be at night and with noisy old planes.”
Mr Stewart urged the campaigners to question whether the larger airport would bring jobs and business opportunities to the area.
He said while the airport would employ more staff, it was questionable whether it would bring any significant prosperity to the town.
Many at the meeting, at the Eastwood Community Centre, felt the expansion would bring added pressure to already gridlocked roads.
Some felt the consultation process organised by Southend Council and Rochford District Council had been poorly advertised and shrouded in secrecy.
Kiti Theobold, who was part of the now disbanded action group which campaigned to save St Laurence Church when it was threatened by previous airport expansion plans, is likely to become chairman of the new committee.
She said: “I am angry about the secrecy from the airport and from Rochford and Southend councils.
“I am angry my friend’s house is due for demolition. I don’t want children suffering from asthma and I don’t want my grandchild to g
Comments(23)
La Ina
says...
8:50am Fri 19 Sep 08
The Voice of Reason
says...
9:02am Fri 19 Sep 08
his is a case of typical councillors scaremongering and spreading lies as usual. The aircraft which will use the airport will be of the same type which already use it - the runway extension is merely to allow for passenger flights to operate using the same aircraft type which currently use the airport for maintenance purposes at the moment!
TVoR
Norfolk
says...
9:23am Fri 19 Sep 08
At the moment aircraft descending over Leigh have to estimate their rate of descent and some will be above, and some below, the required 3.25° angle of descent.
An extended runway would have an Instrument Landing System (ILS) installed which enables (indeed obliges) crews to descend at exactly the required angle, so many aircraft would in fact be HIGHER over Leigh than is now the case.
And how much lower would an aircraft on a 3.25° descent angle be with an extended runway? The answer is about 15 feet, or 1% of their current height.
If Friends of the Earth want to scare people they should also ensure thay put the true facts before them at the same time.
Norfolk
says...
9:35am Fri 19 Sep 08
Robb
says...
10:29am Fri 19 Sep 08
If you stand next to a speaker, and listen to it after at 15 or 30 foot away. That is a great distance for sound to not be so deafening!
It can be looked at in many different ways!
The Voice of Reason
says...
10:45am Fri 19 Sep 08
Robb wrote:Robb - with due respect, technology has allowed us to move on from the old noisey jet engine, to a much quieter, and dare i say, enviornmentally greener, turbofan engine !
Not that I care whether it's extended or not, I just wanted to point out that height has nothing to do with it, it is noise!If you stand next to a speaker, and listen to it after at 15 or 30 foot away. That is a great distance for sound to not be so deafening!It can be looked at in many different ways!
Greater noise will not be an issue - additional noise (ie duration) may be . . . but it's not going to be as bad as the do-gooders are making it out to be
TVoR
Vackman
says...
11:19am Fri 19 Sep 08
Bunch of hypocrites, bigger airport more jobs, these lies about a **** airport costing the town more is rubbish. The council recive a % of any profit the airport makes bigger airport more profit, biger profit more to coucil.
Norfolk
says...
2:41pm Fri 19 Sep 08
The ILS would,in fact, probably have a steeper angle of approach setting (3.5°)than that of the present visual approach so they will be higher when they start their final approach.
This means that, even allowing for the touchdown point being nearer to Leigh, at 3 miles out they will be 25 feet higher, at 2 miles 12 feet higher and only at 1 mile out will they be lower, by 12 feet.
What a pity that Friends of the Earth didn't do their research properly and have made 2 + 2 equal 5. I hope they will apologise for their scaremongering.
Robb
says...
3:40pm Fri 19 Sep 08
Marshwalker
says...
4:08pm Fri 19 Sep 08
I put it to you all, should any flight path to or from an airport be over residentcial areas??
BASILBRUSH
says...
4:46pm Fri 19 Sep 08
Put into perspective Heathrow has around 1200 (based on a figure of around 470000 annual movements) movements per day. Mulitiply that by the amount of aircraft in the world which can take 6 or more passengers taking off and landing, and that gives you an idea of the likelyhood.
Added to that the amount of flights that the airport is seeking to achieve compared to Heathrow and again the risks are further diminished.
Aircraft are incredibly reliable now.
Campbell's dad
says...
4:51pm Fri 19 Sep 08
It is quite difficult to take a photo of the airport without showing the proximity of the houses.
BASILBRUSH
says...
4:56pm Fri 19 Sep 08
As for the first part of the JAAP consultation, there was plenty of information. If people are really concerned about an issue, a basic search engine would have pointed you on the direction of any plans. Not least the airports own website which highlighted it.
If no internet (you are reading this). Then there were notices posted in local rags...... I found them.
Let me fly from my local airport!
SARFENDMAN
says...
5:50pm Fri 19 Sep 08
APR
says...
6:26pm Fri 19 Sep 08
Where would these flights be going ?
A 757 taking off creates less nuisance than a Cessna flying around.
Vackman
says...
8:16pm Fri 19 Sep 08
Airport there since 1915 home owner mot
First come first served.
SARFENDMAN
says...
8:57pm Fri 19 Sep 08
southend janet
says...
10:21pm Fri 19 Sep 08
Thames Gateway
says...
11:46pm Fri 19 Sep 08
This will hardly be noticeable! Especially considering over the din of road traffic noise, especially as the aircraft to be used will be newer, quieter aircraft, many of them turboprop driven.
Indeed on days when the airport has been taking diversions from London City Airport when it has been closed or fogged out, there have been 5 to 10 such movements in some hours, without any complaints received by the airport, (because nobody noticed them).
Then take into account that in future they will be climbing better (becuase of better performance), or, if landing over Leigh, will be higher up because of the raised angle for aircraft to fly in on, proposed as part of the plan to install an accurate Instrument Landing System on Runway 06. This ILS in itself will reduce noise impact as aircraft will fly in to the airport much more accurately on the ILS than they do at present.
Incidentally I went to the meeting last night and I estimated there were only approximately 100 people at the meeting; it was sad to see the desperate FOE spokesperson mangling the facts to try and whip up support for their dwindling popularity locally. And as for John Stewart, he showed a complete lack of understanding of the locality, the history of the airport and it's importance in providing employment and hope in the town.
SARFENDMAN
says...
6:39am Sat 20 Sep 08
margrete
says...
12:32pm Mon 22 Sep 08
I should just state that I am a supporter of the 'Stop Stansted Expansion' campaign and as I explained to our local MP recently in conversation, there is a difference. A second runway for Stansted involves the permanent destruction of beautiful countryside, ancient woodlands, listed buildings and valuable farmland which we need to grow food. No longer can we rely on importing every scrap of food we eat - the cost of fuel sees to that. Southend Airport, by contrast, is already here. There is a runway which is perfectly adequate for most smaller inter-city aircraft. We watched the Cologne flight take off recently and we noticed that, starting at the Eastwoodbury Lane end of the runway, it had cleared the runway, wheels up and ascending, by the time it was half-way along the runway. It did NOT need an increased length.
I agree that modern commercial planes are much quieter and produce less emissions than most of the small club planes. There are stringent requirements in place. I found out about some of these from the time might daughter worked on the Rolls Royce Trent project - their new Trent engine - and that was 10 years ago! I asked her for factual information in response to a similar scaremongering campaign. This has all been rumbling on a very long time.
I don't know where the idea came from that there would be flights every 4 minutes. Neither is it necessarily true that when you fly to holiday destinations in warmer climes fewer local people are affected, less built-up areas etc. This is a generalisation which doesn't necessarily apply. In other words, it's all right for other people's beauty spots to be affected but not for our own back-yard.
My own view of Southend Airport, having lived near it for 18 years, is that it can't stay as it is. It is a large chunk of prime land which is under-used at present. With the pressure from government bodies to our local authority to provide land for thousands of homes to comply with increasing population, you can see where this argument might lead.
evilc
says...
9:20pm Tue 23 Sep 08
Norfolk wrote:Beam me up scotty!!
Let's get some perspective on this height difference shall we?
At the moment aircraft descending over Leigh have to estimate their rate of descent and some will be above, and some below, the required 3.25° angle of descent.
An extended runway would have an Instrument Landing System (ILS) installed which enables (indeed obliges) crews to descend at exactly the required angle, so many aircraft would in fact be HIGHER over Leigh than is now the case.
And how much lower would an aircraft on a 3.25° descent angle be with an extended runway? The answer is about 15 feet, or 1% of their current height.
If Friends of the Earth want to scare people they should also ensure thay put the true facts before them at the same time.
j-w
says...
2:30pm Wed 7 Apr 10
More News stories
Buy this photo »
Expansion plan - an aerial view looking across Southend Airport’s runway to central Southend
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with