Was the author of the pamphlet describing the proposed development at Southend Airport someone who writes holiday brochures?

We are quickly reminded of the facts related to quiet, fuel-efficient aircraft (twice on page two and again on page three) so that’s all right is it not?

I have yet to experience a jet aircraft that is quiet.

There is repeated mention of access from the airport to the A127. The airport is only a mile from the A127, so promising fast new access to the airport changes little for the motorist, but will be significant for residents were these changes to be made.

The expansion, it says, is only acceptable if it takes account of environmental constraints, which will ensure that the environment is not significantly affected.

The twaddle that accompanies these statements is difficult enough to read let alone begging the question of how they will be managed!

It mentions environmental impacts that must be managed by way of a mix of physical and policy. The words “carefully considered”

are repeated ad nauseum.

It will not change anything by just writing platitudes.

If something is bad for us then it must be avoided.

Finally, the residents of Southend Road must be pleased to get a mention.

They will, after all, benefit from the retention of the open space in front of their homes. What a joke.

Readers will have probably concluded that I am opposed to the planned expansion. I believe many more people would also be opposed if they only knew and realised the impact this will have on us all.

G E Harvey
North Crescent

...I am in awe as to where the information confirming continuous flights, night and day, as Clive Evers (April 30) claims, has come from, especially when on the same day, T Jones states operational limits of 16.5hrs, 313 days annually.

There will not be two million people using the airport from day one, but anticipated in around ten years. Even at two million annually, T Jones’ figures stating annual airport operation period of 313 days and, 16.5hrs each day, equates to 387 passengers per hour, which is half the (grossly inaccurate) 750 vehicles hourly Mr Evers suggests, even if it was on an unlikely, one car per passenger basis.

It is so evident the objectors, have no justified arguments, and scream “noise and pollution” out of jealously because they wish to stop others from succeeding.

Get your figures right and stop scaremongering by being evasive with the whole truth.

Stephanie Dunnoh
Crowborough Road