1.5 Getting Your Views

The response to this document is expected by the 8 Aug 2008 which gives just a month, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond.

How much more is to be crowded into this corner of Essex.From 'The Peace Of My Garden' I can during the day at any one time see and hear at least 3 high flying jets,then the lower flying comercial jets from Southend followed by the private planes.To add to this we are obviously on the helicopter route both for commercial and military useage.These are low,noisey and intrusive.People in this area generally have stressful lives,with work,travel and at certain times of the day gridlock.Let them have some peace and keep the expansion to a minimum.I also agree with others comments that with the cost of fuel and the fact we are going into recession both commercial and tourist traffic will fall. Stanstead's American flights have ceased for economic reasons and even the mighty Ryanair are reducing flights in some areas.

This isn't a fair way of gathering all residents' views. How will the consultation process be widened?

This isn't a fair way to gain residents' views. The report and site haven't been widely published and, even if you feel that they have, few people know about it and the dearth of comments here are testamount to this fact.

This is an unfair and poor method of collecting the opinions of those affected by the proposals! Its almost as though the proposers of the plan don't actually want anyone to review it. My neighbour, for example, did not even know there were any plans for further expansion. I was only told myself 1 week ago. Very poorly advertised. Not representative or reliable. Am appauled that peoples lives can be determined in this fashion!

An independent opinion poll conducted in July 2008 on behalf of the Airport showed that:
. 86% said they would support the development of Southend Airport as a fully functioning regional airport with flights to popular holiday destinations
. 90% said Southend Airport did not have any impact on their day-to-day lives now. The main concerns of those who are affected said that their concerns are about road traffic and aircraft noise.

It beggars belief that this consultation should be held in the middle of the holiday season.

Rochford District Council's new recycling service has been gven more publicity than this.

I should explain that I am the Secretary to the Southend Airport Consultative Committee but that I am submitting these views in my private capacity as a resident living not very far from the Airport. I am also a member of the Rochford Hundred Golf Club.

I have lived in Southend, apart from a period of three years in the 1970s, since 1959. Although the town has its problems, particularly egress and access, living here has many advantages and I would like to see the town thrive economically whilst retaining its environmental benefits.

Over the years that I have lived in Southend the amount of industrial activity in the town has reduced significantly. This mirrors the reduction of Britain as a productive country but it has been exacerbated in Southend by its geographical position and poor communication links. This is a concern because I believe that it is important for the town that there should be a balance of employment. Although Southend has a number of sites that are vacant, because it is relatively densely populated, these can only be developed with housing or commercial properties. It is also largely developed up to its boundaries and there are few areas where industrial development could take place. Areas around the study area could provide such opportunities.

I believe that the Airport is already very important to the local economy and could become more so without Southend becoming a less desirable place to live. The modern aircraft that would be able to use the extended runway with a full payroll are quieter and climb quicker than older ones.

Unfortunately, I didn't take advantage of using the Airport when it was possible to fly to European holiday destinations and would welcome the possibility of doing so in due course. At present ordinary residents experience the disbenefits, albeit that they are relatively small, of living near an airport without all of the benefits.

All of these factors lead me to believe that the high growth option is desirable and I note that this has the best fit with the study's strategic objectives. I also note the disadvantages set out in the report and whilst I agree with them, I believe that many of them are already there. For instance, the brickworks site is, in effect a "brownfield" site and the landscape value of the area is affected by development already taking place. So long as the development doesn't extend beyond the boundary shown in Scenario 3, I fully support these proposals.

In response to the issues raised under 1.4, may I register my firm objection to any suggestion that the airport development would be sustainable. Equally there is no substantive evidence that expansion would be a driver for sustainable growth. Quite the reverse. Echoing the decision made by the Leigh Councillors,no consideration has been given for the wider environmental implications/consequences for those living & visiting Leigh/Southend. Existing tourism would be adversely affected. It would be undeniably suicidal to alienate those who seek to recreate the halycion days of their youth - the zeitgeist underpinning the success of green, family friendly Cornwall/Devon.

The consultation is flawed as it is based on the presumption that expansion is a good thing. All 4 options represent growth even option 1 - the "Low Growth (do minimum) option" represents unacceptable growth of the aviation industry which is undesirable for local people in terms of noise and pollution and also for the planet in terms of higher CO2 emissions and climate change.
However, of the four scenarios South-East Essex Green Party prefers Scenario one - the "Low Growth (de minimum)" option.

The argument that expansion of the airport operation would provide more jobs can be countered by taking a more radical view, namely that even more jobs could be created in the renewable sector if the current operation switched to supporting sustainable industries. This could involve the re-training of skilled staff to produce, for example, wind turbines. The existing green belt should not be re-defined to allow more industrial units when there are already many unoccupied units around existing industrial sites around the area.

The thrust of this response will now concentrate on outlining a realistic approach to the economic climate which in itself suggests that aviation growth is unrealistic in the age of peak oil.

In July, 2008, an expert group in the fields of finance, energy and the environment including Green MEP, Caroline Lucas, put forward a plan to tackle the 'triple crunch' of credit, oil price and climate crises. The 'Green New Deal' for the UK comes 75 years after President Roosevelt launched a New Deal to rescue the US from financial crisis.

The Green New Deal is a response to the credit crunch and wider energy and food crises, and to the lack of comprehensive, joined-up action from politicians. It calls for:

Massive investment in renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the UK, leading to
the creation of thousands of new green collar jobs; reining in reckless aspects of the finance sector - but making low-cost capital available to fund the UK's green economic shift; building a new alliance between environmentalists, industry, agriculture, and unions to put the interests of the real economy ahead of those of footloose finance.

The global economy is facing a 'triple crunch': a combination of a credit-fuelled financial crisis, accelerating climate change and soaring energy prices underpinned by encroaching peak oil. It is increasingly clear that these three overlapping events threaten to develop into a perfect storm, the like of which has not been seen since the Great Depression, with potentially devastating consequences.

As in past times of crises, disparate groups have come together to propose a new solution to an epochal challenge.

The Green New Deal Group, drawing inspiration from the tone of President Roosevelt's comprehensive response to the Great Depression, propose a modernised version, a 'Green New Deal' designed to power a renewables revolution, create thousands of green-collar jobs and rein in the distorting power of the finance sector while making more low-cost capital available for pressing priorities.

Seventy-five years ago, Roosevelt's courageous programme was implemented in an unprecedented '100-days of lawmaking'. And, as the Green New Deal Group launch their proposals, new analysis suggests that from the end of July 2008 there is only 100 months, or less, to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before we hit a potential point of no return. This is the moment when the likelihood of irreversible changes in the climate becomes unacceptably high.

The most serious global crisis since the Great Depression calls for serious reform the like of which has not, yet, been considered by politicians.

This entails re-regulating finance and taxation plus a huge transformational programme aimed at substantially reducing the use of fossil fuels and, in the process, tackling the unemployment and decline in demand caused by the credit crunch. It involves policies and new funding mechanisms that will reduce emissions and allow us to cope better with the coming energy shortages caused by peak oil.

International in outlook, the Green New Deal requires action at local, national, regional and global levels. Focusing first on the specific needs of the UK, the Green New Deal outlines an interlocking programme of action that will require an ambitious legislative programme backed by a bold new alliance of industry, agriculture, labour and environmentalists.

The Green New Deal report:

This report is the first publication of the Green New Deal Group. Meeting since early 2007, its membership is drawn to reflect a wide range of expertise relating to the current financial, energy and environmental crises. The views and recommendations of the report are those of the group writing in their individual capacities. The report is published on behalf of the Green New Deal Group by nef (the new economics foundation).

Proposal's set out in the Group's report include:


Executing a bold new vision for a low-carbon energy system that will include making 'every building a power station'.
Creating and training a 'carbon army' of workers to provide the human resources for a vast environmental reconstruction programme.
Establishing an Oil Legacy Fund, paid for by a windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies as part of a wide-ranging package of financial innovations and incentives to assemble the tens of billions of pounds that need to be spent. These would also include Local Authority green bonds, green gilts and green family savings bonds. The monies raised would help deal with the effects of climate change and smooth the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Ensuring more realistic fossil fuel prices that include the cost to the environment, and that are high enough to tackle climate change by creating economic incentives to drive efficiency and bring alternative fuels to market. This will provide funding for the Green New Deal and safety nets to those vulnerable to higher prices via rapidly rising carbon taxes and revenue from carbon trading.
Minimising corporate tax evasion by clamping down on tax havens and corporate financial reporting. A range of measures including deducting tax at source for all income paid to financial institutions in tax havens would provide much-needed sources of public finance at a time when economic contraction is reducing conventional tax receipts.
Re-regulating the domestic financial system. Inspired by reforms implemented in the 1930s, this would imply cutting interest rates across the board- including the reduction of the Bank of England's interest rate - and changes in debt-management policy to enable reductions in interest rates across all government borrowing. This is designed to help those borrowing to build a new energy and transport infrastructure. In parallel, to prevent inflation, we want to see much tighter regulation of the wider financial environment.
Breaking up the discredited financial institutions that have needed so much public money to prop them up in the latest credit crunch. Large banking and finance groups should be forcibly demerged. Retail banking should be split from both corporate finance (merchant banking) and from securities dealing. The demerged units should then be split into smaller banks. Mega banks make mega mistakes that affect us all. Instead of institutions that are 'too big to fail', we need institutions that are small enough to fail without creating problems for depositors and the wider public.
The Green New Deal Group urges the UK Government to take action at the international level to help build the orderly, well-regulated and supportive policy and financial environment that is required to restore economic stability and nurture environmental sustainability, including:


Allowing all nations far greater autonomy over domestic monetary policy (interest rates and money supply) and fiscal policy (government spending and taxation).
Setting a formal international target for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations that keeps future temperature rises as far below 2°C as possible.
Giving poorer countries the opportunity to escape poverty without fuelling global warming by helping to finance massive investment in climate-change adaptation and renewable energy.
In this way the members of the Green New Deal Group believe we can begin to stabilise the current crisis, and lay the foundations for the emergence of a set of resilient low carbon economies, rich in jobs and based on independent sources of energy supply.

The Green New Deal will rekindle a vital sense of purpose, restoring public trust and refocusing the use of capital on public priorities and sustainability. In this way it can also help deliver a wide range of social benefits that can greatly improve quality of life in the future. There is also an immediate imperative to restore some faith that society can survive the dreadful threats it now faces as a result of the triple crunch.

Beyond that, the Group's members believe we can deliver a crucial national plan for a low-energy future and its provision on the ground. The absence of any such plan at present leaves the country very vulnerable.

The Green New Deal Group is:

Larry Elliott, Economics Editor of the Guardian,

Colin Hines,Co-Director of Finance for the Future, former head of Greenpeace International's Economics Unit,

Tony Juniper, former Director of Friends of the Earth,

Jeremy Leggett, founder and Chairman of Solarcentury and SolarAid,

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MEP,

Richard Murphy, Co-Director of Finance for the Future and Director, Tax Research LLP,

Ann Pettifor, former head of the Jubilee 2000 debt relief campaign, Campaign Director of Operation Noah,

Charles Secrett, Advisor on Sustainable Development, former Director of Friends of the Earth,

Andrew Simms, Policy Director, nef (the new economics foundation).

The majority of the public oppose aviation expansion. I suggest the council holds a local referdum on this issue, in which one option given is to prevent further expansion of flights to and from Southend Airport.