Object
London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 32661
Received: 25/04/2013
Respondent: Mr B J Free
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This policy statement lists five bullet points most of which are contradicted by the proposed actions.
The connectivity promoted by the Airport is of a very limited kind. The vast majority of the passengers attracted to flights from London Southend Airport are seasonal holidaymakers. Few use the railway station, some come by coach or taxi but the majority arrives and departs by private car. Apart from the increase in air pollution, this traffic by clogging up the limited road access to the area is an impediment to commercial activities that contribute to the wealth of the majority of residents. For the majority most of the time this does not improve connectivity quite the reverse in fact is true.
Such congestion will act as a deterrent to future investment in the area and may in fact drive away current businesses. Airport passengers pass through the area without stopping and only the operators of the Airport stand to gain from them coming. This is hardly an efficient use and upgrading of existing employment and land resources.
The last thing that an airport does is to ensure a high quality public realm and environment for residents and workers. If those who propose this development had consulted "What are Airport's Impacts" Planning Guide Part 2 by C. Weston they would not have made such a foolish statement. This guide is available by download from the Internet and I submit its availability in evidence.
To quote Mark Twain "Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt" and both Councils are in denial in respect of the impact these developments will have on the lives of their residents.
The airliners now flying from London Southend Airport may well be quieter and more fuel efficient than those in the past, but they are larger and therefore the risks involved are greater. Also despite being more fuel efficient than those in the past by being larger and burn more fuel and so produce more pollution overall not less. Aircraft engines have no catalytic converters.
The use of more fuel will require more storage capacity at the Airport and the fuel arrives by road tanker not pipeline as at most other airports. In 1957 the Airport applied to increase the number of above ground fuel storage tanks and Essex County Council opposed this. A reduced number was finally agreed after arbitration by a government minister. This is recorded in the minutes of the old Airport Committee (Minute 2730 28th October 1957 refers). It is hard to imagine why EEC would now approve it. The movement and storage of large quantities of aviation fuel produces pollution and risk before it is even burned in aircraft engines.
The undesirable effects of airports were totally disregarded in the Submission Draft. To develop one so close to residential housing as proposed does not conform to Government, European Union or the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) policy.
A large part of the development is in the flood plane and its hardening of large areas significantly increases runoff. There are even proposals to build on level 2 and 3 flood levels. The Government policy in this respect is to discourage if not actually bans such building in view of increased rainfall due to climate change. Therefore to say that the proposals are in conformity with existing and emerging local policy is incorrect.
Apart from planning considerations the government is committed to EU policies to work toward reducing and then eliminating short domestic air travel. In a European context all the flights that can be undertaken for London Southend Airport are short domestic flights. Therefore the expansion and encouragement of these flights is also contrary to government policy.
A policy that is so clearly at odds with the declared policy of government is hardly conforming to guiding principles.
The claims that there is a shortage in runway capacity are contradicted by the proposals by the owners of Manston Airport. Having failed for a number of years to sell it, they now propose to close it and put the site to other more protifable use. Also Stansted Airport is currently operating at little more than 2/3 capacity.
This section of the Submission Draft is therefore unbalanced and in conflict with government policy. Because a balanced report is required by statute it is also therefore unlawful.
This policy statement lists five bullet points most of which are contradicted by the proposed actions.
The connectivity promoted by the Airport is of a very limited kind. The vast majority of the passengers attracted to flights from London Southend Airport are seasonal holidaymakers. Few use the railway station, some come by coach or taxi but the majority arrives and departs by private car. Apart from the increase in air pollution, this traffic by clogging up the limited road access to the area is an impediment to commercial activities that contribute to the wealth of the majority of residents. For the majority most of the time this does not improve connectivity quite the reverse in fact is true.
Such congestion will act as a deterrent to future investment in the area and may in fact drive away current businesses. Airport passengers pass through the area without stopping and only the operators of the Airport stand to gain from them coming. This is hardly an efficient use and upgrading of existing employment and land resources.
The last thing that an airport does is to ensure a high quality public realm and environment for residents and workers. If those who propose this development had consulted "What are Airport's Impacts" Planning Guide Part 2 by C. Weston they would not have made such a foolish statement. This guide is available by download from the Internet and I submit its availability in evidence.
To quote Mark Twain "Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt" and both Councils are in denial in respect of the impact these developments will have on the lives of their residents.
The airliners now flying from London Southend Airport may well be quieter and more fuel efficient than those in the past, but they are larger and therefore the risks involved are greater. Also despite being more fuel efficient than those in the past by being larger and burn more fuel and so produce more pollution overall not less. Aircraft engines have no catalytic converters.
The use of more fuel will require more storage capacity at the Airport and the fuel arrives by road tanker not pipeline as at most other airports. In 1957 the Airport applied to increase the number of above ground fuel storage tanks and Essex County Council opposed this. A reduced number was finally agreed after arbitration by a government minister. This is recorded in the minutes of the old Airport Committee (Minute 2730 28th October 1957 refers). It is hard to imagine why EEC would now approve it. The movement and storage of large quantities of aviation fuel produces pollution and risk before it is even burned in aircraft engines.
The undesirable effects of airports were totally disregarded in the Submission Draft. To develop one so close to residential housing as proposed does not conform to Government, European Union or the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) policy.
A large part of the development is in the flood plane and its hardening of large areas significantly increases runoff. There are even proposals to build on level 2 and 3 flood levels. The Government policy in this respect is to discourage if not actually bans such building in view of increased rainfall due to climate change. Therefore to say that the proposals are in conformity with existing and emerging local policy is incorrect.
Apart from planning considerations the government is committed to EU policies to work toward reducing and then eliminating short domestic air travel. In a European context all the flights that can be undertaken for London Southend Airport are short domestic flights. Therefore the expansion and encouragement of these flights is also contrary to government policy.
A policy that is so clearly at odds with the declared policy of government is hardly conforming to guiding principles.
The claims that there is a shortage in runway capacity are contradicted by the proposals by the owners of Manston Airport. Having failed for a number of years to sell it, they now propose to close it and put the site to other more protifable use. Also Stansted Airport is currently operating at little more than 2/3 capacity.
This section of the Submission Draft is therefore unbalanced and in conflict with government policy. Because a balanced report is required by statute it is also therefore unlawful.