Object
London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 32670
Received: 25/04/2013
Respondent: Mr B J Free
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
There is residential housing closer to London Southend Airport than any other airport in the UK and yet it has the least controls on night flights. Prior to the hardening of the runways in 1956 the Airport opened at 0600 hours and closed at 2200 hours in the summer and at 0800 hours and closed at 2000 in the winter.
Virtually unlimited night flying was only permitted in an attempt to increase income to pay off the debt incurred to construct the original runways and add runway lighting. The old Airport Committee ruled that it was wrong to deliberately restrict growth of the Airport by disallowing use at night. A policy of allowing so many night flights was a cruel breach of the human right to an undisturbed nights sleep and the medical consequences of such disturbance well established. In practice the new proposals do little to improve on it. Such a policy will not as stated in the document 'maintain the quality of life for residents'.
The small 'Green Lungs' referred to must surely be a bad joke bearing in mind the imposition of a polluting airport into the space that should provide this between Southend and Rochford.
Business travellers at Southend are a small minority, most are seasonal holidaymakers. It is easyJet policy to attract more business travellers and that must cast doubt on its future operations at Southend.
The narrow bodied airliners that at present fly from Southend are no longer the most fuel efficient available. Economics and EU policy will force companies such as easyJet to update their fleets with more fuel efficient aircraft. These are larger and require a longer runway than Southend can provide.
The sustainability of the Airport is dependent upon the availability of affordable fossil fuel at a time of accelerating demand and diminishing supply. To promote this airport expansion is over optimistic and verges on the reckless and is not sustainable.
As a result of WW2 the UK has a surfeit of runways and every local authority with a former military airfield in its area has tried to redevelop it as an airport. The result of this is too many small airport most of which lose money. This is a misdirection of investment that the country cannot afford. I am not alone in this view Paul Kehoe Chief Executive of Birmingham Airport has expressed similar views in the Times, saying the country has twice the number of airports it needs and half should close.
A regional or even sub-regional airport needs a region; Southend does not have one. How will the Airport look in 15 to 20 years? In all probability closed. It is set to join Victoria Avenue with its graveyard of disused offices as a memorial to myopic planning.
It is contrary to Government and European Union policy to encourage the increase of short domestic flights. Flights to the continent are in European terms domestic. To deliberately compete with rail within the UK is even more undesirable and German and Dutch railway companies will soon be operating into Stratford railway station.
The Saxon Business Park serves mainly to replace the Foundry Industrial Area now demolished and Eldon Way business park scheduled to be demolished and redeveloped for housing; both are in Hockley. Only the Anglia Ruskin Medtech Campus is guaranteed to add new jobs any others at the moment identified are jobs relocated from elsewhere, therefore the promise of new jobs is mainly speculative.
It was clearly stated at the Public Inquiries that lead to the stopping up of a section of Eastwoodbury Lane and footpath 121 that St Laurence Way, described as a diversionary road, would not be used for access to the Airport. This would be via Manners Way, but this is proving not to be the case. Traffic is using Eastwoodbury Lane and St Laurence Way to reach the Airport. Both Eastwoodbury Lane and Manners Way are residential roads and the A127 is a heavily congested road carrying well over its designed capacity. So much for good road access.
As in the past with the shuttle bus from Rochford railway station few passengers use the rail to access the Airport. The assertions that the new railway station was vital for the Airports future were merely accepted wisdom not based on hard evidence.
In view of these contradictions the Submission Draft cannot be considered balanced. Legislation requires this Submission Draft to be balanced, as it is not it is unlawful.
There is residential housing closer to London Southend Airport than any other airport in the UK and yet it has the least controls on night flights. Prior to the hardening of the runways in 1956 the Airport opened at 0600 hours and closed at 2200 hours in the summer and at 0800 hours and closed at 2000 in the winter.
Virtually unlimited night flying was only permitted in an attempt to increase income to pay off the debt incurred to construct the original runways and add runway lighting. The old Airport Committee ruled that it was wrong to deliberately restrict growth of the Airport by disallowing use at night. A policy of allowing so many night flights was a cruel breach of the human right to an undisturbed nights sleep and the medical consequences of such disturbance well established. In practice the new proposals do little to improve on it. Such a policy will not as stated in the document 'maintain the quality of life for residents'.
The small 'Green Lungs' referred to must surely be a bad joke bearing in mind the imposition of a polluting airport into the space that should provide this between Southend and Rochford.
Business travellers at Southend are a small minority, most are seasonal holidaymakers. It is easyJet policy to attract more business travellers and that must cast doubt on its future operations at Southend.
The narrow bodied airliners that at present fly from Southend are no longer the most fuel efficient available. Economics and EU policy will force companies such as easyJet to update their fleets with more fuel efficient aircraft. These are larger and require a longer runway than Southend can provide.
The sustainability of the Airport is dependent upon the availability of affordable fossil fuel at a time of accelerating demand and diminishing supply. To promote this airport expansion is over optimistic and verges on the reckless and is not sustainable.
As a result of WW2 the UK has a surfeit of runways and every local authority with a former military airfield in its area has tried to redevelop it as an airport. The result of this is too many small airport most of which lose money. This is a misdirection of investment that the country cannot afford. I am not alone in this view Paul Kehoe Chief Executive of Birmingham Airport has expressed similar views in the Times, saying the country has twice the number of airports it needs and half should close.
A regional or even sub-regional airport needs a region; Southend does not have one. How will the Airport look in 15 to 20 years? In all probability closed. It is set to join Victoria Avenue with its graveyard of disused offices as a memorial to myopic planning.
It is contrary to Government and European Union policy to encourage the increase of short domestic flights. Flights to the continent are in European terms domestic. To deliberately compete with rail within the UK is even more undesirable and German and Dutch railway companies will soon be operating into Stratford railway station.
The Saxon Business Park serves mainly to replace the Foundry Industrial Area now demolished and Eldon Way business park scheduled to be demolished and redeveloped for housing; both are in Hockley. Only the Anglia Ruskin Medtech Campus is guaranteed to add new jobs any others at the moment identified are jobs relocated from elsewhere, therefore the promise of new jobs is mainly speculative.
It was clearly stated at the Public Inquiries that lead to the stopping up of a section of Eastwoodbury Lane and footpath 121 that St Laurence Way, described as a diversionary road, would not be used for access to the Airport. This would be via Manners Way, but this is proving not to be the case. Traffic is using Eastwoodbury Lane and St Laurence Way to reach the Airport. Both Eastwoodbury Lane and Manners Way are residential roads and the A127 is a heavily congested road carrying well over its designed capacity. So much for good road access.
As in the past with the shuttle bus from Rochford railway station few passengers use the rail to access the Airport. The assertions that the new railway station was vital for the Airports future were merely accepted wisdom not based on hard evidence.
In view of these contradictions the Submission Draft cannot be considered balanced. Legislation requires this Submission Draft to be balanced, as it is not it is unlawful.