Policy LS1 - General Policy

The statements made in Introduction, General Principles and Airport Policies undermine Policy LS1 because they are unsound.

1. False claims relating to employment creation.

In the way that the introduction in this section refers to employment creation it becomes clear that the entire policy of the two councils towards the airport is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. An incorrect assumption that the airport will attract wealth and investment, thereby creating jobs is repeated again and again until this falsehood becomes reality. This incorrect assumption has become a mantra for the councils and many councillors, repeated in an attempt to justify this unsustainable development. The JAAP and its assumptions stand in complete opposition to evidence based policy.

The reality is that the UK aviation tourism industry exports more wealth that it imports. In 2012 this was around £11.2 Billion, which is equivalent to the loss of around 500,000 jobs. By expanding aviation and offering new routes the two councils encourage ever larger numbers of people to travel abroad. Indeed in the first year of operation it is understood that the most popular destination has proven to be Amsterdam with many thousands of people choosing to travel to the Netherlands simply because the airport began to offer this route. Had the route not been offered facility the approximately 105,000 passengers would have spent that disposable income on other things.

For many years this group sought to encourage the two councils to adopt a genuinely sustainable economic model, which included the development of the huge potential for eco-tourism in and around the rivers Thames and Crouch (cycling, cycling off-road and on-road, wind surfing, sailing, kayaking, walking, etc) but instead of choosing an economic model that would keep UK wealth within the UK, the councils adopted a policy of exporting wealth and widening the UK's trade deficit.

Attempts are currently underway to establish the precise details on the numbers of flights taken from the airport in the first year of operation. This group is attempting to establish the number of passengers who have flown abroad, the number of internal flights/passengers and the number of foreign tourists who have used the airport to travel to the UK. We are also working to break this detail down to establish the number of passengers who have moved from using Stansted to using Southend Airport and also the number of passengers who have been tempted to fly abroad simply because the airport is sufficiently close.

Prior to expansion a number of councillors argued that expanded operations at the airport would bring thousands of tourists to the town, filling the local shops with new customers and creating hundreds possibly thousands of jobs. Great play was also made by the airport owners and the two councils that rushing through expansion would enable the airport owners to use the 2012 Olympics to "showcase" the airport.

In reality the truth was very different. Very few foreign tourists have been tempted to use the airport at Southend. It should be noted that Biggin Hill attracted more than 850 special Olympic charter flights, and Cambridge airport a similar number, but we have been unable to establish if the airport at Southend attracted any at all.

This group has asked that Southend Borough Council be required to undertake a post implementation review of the first year of operations at the airport to provide both councils with evidence upon which to base future decisions. We have sought the precise data because only when the two councils are forced to confront the scale of the failure of their projections and predictions will they have any chance of producing a JAAP or any other development policy that creates long term jobs in the area.

The public will have read different data and projections in the local media relating to the number of flights and passengers handled by the airport. At one time people were led to believe that the airport was on target to handle around 1 million passengers in the first 12 months of operation but the number may be a little lower than this. To provide a guide to the employment implications of this we offer a scenario of 100,000 internal passengers and 800,000 passengers who travel abroad. The average UK tourist spend abroad is believed to be £395, which means that those 800,000 passengers will have exported £316 million abroad. This equates to the loss of 12,640 jobs from the Essex and London economy - dwarfing the jobs that it is claimed have been created by airport expansion.

The very last thing that an economy should do when it is suffering the longest period of stagnation in decades, is to encourage its population to export wealth. Instead of encouraging people to holiday abroad, government should be looking at ways to encourage people to holiday within the UK, spending disposable here. The very last thing the two local councils should have done is to discourage people from spending disposable income on entertainment in Essex by encouraging people to travel and take wealth abroad. The scale of wealth exported in the first year may well be equivalent in magnitude to the loss of over 12,000 jobs.

2. Incorrect assumptions regarding noise from aircraft

It is noted that the document says "London Southend Airport must be able to accommodate new and future aircraft models that are quieter and more fuel efficient".

The Secretary of State must be informed of this, often repeated claim and asked to get at the facts. The two local councils should be required to face up to the reality of the situation.

The facts is that the description of the A319s currently operating from the airport as the most modern and fuel efficient is incorrect. These aircraft conform to chapter 3 of annex 16 to chapter 30 of the Chicago Convention. The specification for chapter 4 aircraft was agreed in 2006 and it is the policy agreed this year to "aggressively" replace chapter 3 aircraft with chapter 4 aircraft in order to meet commitments on reducing emissions. The replacement for the current A319 is the A319neo (new engine option). Both Boeing and Airbus offer conversions by re-engineering existing narrow bodied airliners to meet the new standard. The new engines provide greater fuel economy and therefore lower emissions of CO2; but are heavier, larger in diameter and produce less maximum power. This has the effect of increasing the take-off run meaning that the increase in runway length has been negated. It also increases the landing weight and approach speed putting more impact load on the run way.

The operating costs of the A319neo (156 seats) and the A320neo (180 seats) are virtually the same and orders for the A319neo are understood to have dried up. Fewer than 30 A319neos but more than 1,400 A320neos are currently on order. EasyJet has no A319neos on order, having converted their orders for A319s to A320neos. These aircraft are heavier and require a runway longer and stronger than that now at Southend Airport.

If EasyJet were to purchase the Bombardier C series of aircraft only the smaller capacity planes could be used - CE100 (125 seats) and CE300XT (145 seats). Of the aircraft currently or proposing to use Southend, the Fokker 100, Boeing 737-600 series and Boeing 717 are chapter 3 aircraft. The Emraer 195 is a chapter 3 aircraft and requires a runway of 2,179 metres at maximum takeoff weight. Only the turboprop aircraft operating from the airport, such as the ATR 52/72 of Aer Arran have chapter 4 compliance.

The implications of this are that easyJet and other airlines with larger aircraft will eventually stop using Southend airport. The fact that the JAAP makes no reference to this impending tension provides the very strong impression that the two councils have been blind to the various factors that suggest the long term future of the airport is bleak.

It is important to remember that the airport cannot be expanded further in the future. There is a railway and main road at one end and a 1,000 year old, Grade I listed, church at the other end, which the airport owner has guaranteed will never be moved or demolished.

Expanded operations at Southend Airport is what unsustainable development looks like. Expanded operations at Southend Airport is what policy failure looks like.


3. Environmental

Several references are made in this section to environmental considerations (e.g. "expansion is, however, only acceptable if it is undertaken subject to strict environmental controls").

This is grossly misleading to the point of being offensive. The scale of annoyance and distress being caused to the local population by noise from the airport is callous. Around 80% of the population under and close to the flight path, and close to the airport suffer unacceptable noise. Airport operations regularly disturb the sleep of local people and disrupt schools during normal work hours. There have been a constant stream of complaints about the complaints monitoring system used by the airport such that it has lost all credibility.

The reality is that only around 20% of the population close to airport operations do not feel their quality of life is being adversely impacted by expanded operations. Our opinion poll found that those people tended to be elderly but this was not exclusively the case.

Our challenge to the two councils is to arrange an independent opinion survey of those living around the airport and under the flight path. This will demonstrate that few members of the local population agree that "expansion (has)... been undertaken subject to strict environmental controls" and the vast majority of people vigorously object to night flights.

The JAAP document should be reworded to emphasise that the two councils have fought to secure the very weakest environmental controls and protection for the local population. The decision to permit any night flights is seen as a disgrace by the overwhelming majority of residents (but people do accept flights in an emergency). The decision to expand an airport so close to densely populated residential areas was callous in the extreme.

While the airport must be asked to provide an annual report to the council (page 32 para 20) it is vital that the two councils commission an annual report on the views of the local population living within 2 miles of the airport and the flight path (a genuine survey that gives people the chance to express all areas of concern).

Under general principles it is stated that "the much needed development must not be at the expense of a worsening of the environment and quality of life for those living in the area". In the light of the fact that expanded operations have broken this crucial requirement, a requirement that is so important to the local population and is set out so clearly in the JAAP, we demand that immediate steps be taken to reduce the scale of operations at the airport, beginning with a ban on all movements on the airfield prior to 8am and after 10pm.

Turning to the argument that increasing flights at Southend airport will save the local population from travelling to Stansted, and the suggestion in the JAAP that this will reduce the number of miles travelled by car there are two issues that ought to have been considered. The failure to comment upon these two issues suggests that the analysis in support of the JAAP is incomplete: 1. The proximity of Southend airport to the large urban population in south Essex is attracting some people to travel who would not otherwise have done so. Most of these people travel to and from the airport by car. Typically this is by the "kiss and fly" method that involves 4 car journeys. 2. Southend airport now offers more internal flights, demonstrating that far from supporting the use of public transport it is now going into competition with the railways. It must also be noted that the new railway station at the airport is poorly used, indicating that the very significant council taxpayer contribution to airport infrastructure has been squandered.

The two councils should commit to reporting annually on how airport passengers travel to and from airport and the impact the scale of road travel has upon congestion. The JAAP notes that the road network cannot cope with the projected 2 million passengers forecast so annual reporting will serve to provide better information to future administrations and provide a guide to a better informed decision making process.

4. Compensation under 1973 Land Act

On page 33 the JAAP makes reference to the impact of expanded operations on the value of property. The implication is not clear but it is noted that the airport has been in existence for 75 years. What was needed from the two councils was specific and clear guidance for the local population on the scale of noise insulation that could be obtained from the airport owners and the process for making claims under the 1973 Land Act to secure financial compensation for loss of value of property. The two councils have been consistently condemned by the local population for the lack of advice it has given to people. In the light of the substantial scale of financial losses both councils should undertake to explain to all people within 3 miles of the airport and the flight path what their rights are and the process for going about securing compensation. Leaving this task to the residents action group (SAEN) amounts to a gross dereliction of the duty of care the two councils ought to show to the population that has been hit so hard and cruelly. It is important to note that the scale of compensation owed to the local population might exceed £50million. The expansion of operations at the airport has not merely inflicted huge damage upon the quality of life of local people, it has also stripped £millions from the wealth of the community.

5. Annual Reports

Page 34 indicates the number of reports that the airport owner should produce. In the light of the scale of criticism of the complaints procedure, the councils should ensure that the scale of public dissatisfaction with airport operations should be identified by using an independent reputable opinion polling service. It is vital that the two councils commission an annual report on the views of the local population living within 2 miles of the airport and the flight path (a genuine survey that gives people the chance to express all areas of concern).

The airport owner should also report annually on the number of foreign visitors who travel to the UK, the number of UK residents who travel abroad and the number of passengers who fly to UK destinations that are served by a railway network.

Summary

Under "Airport Policies" on Page 35, it is noted that the JAAP supports in principle expansion to 2 million passengers. In the light of statements elsewhere in the JAAP, noting the importance that expansion must not be at the expense of the quality of life of residents, the JAAP should be amended to note that the two councils will work to reduce the scale of operations at the airport until those living close to the airport are satisfied that it no longer causes an unacceptable nuisance. This section of the JAAP should also note that if expanded operations cause a greater out-flow of tourist wealth than income, the two councils will work to reduce the scale of operations, shifting efforts to encouraging people to holiday at home - within the UK.

The strategic and local importance of the airport to this area is recognised and in order to reach its potential as a local regional airport, it is essential that the airport is able to expand. Of particular importance is the need to extend the runway (as this would increase its attractiveness to fixed based operators), provide new passenger facilities, a park and ride facility and new train station to serve the airport; only with these essential improvements will the airport be able to transport the anticipated capacity of 2 million passengers per annum.

The boundary line has been extended which runs directly behind my house, if the runway is not being extended anymore why does the boundary need to be

The current 106 agreement does not protect the residents, the aircraft used are not quiet if you live in the flightpath, therefore in the summer you can no longer sleep with your windows open, also the fumes from the aircrafts you can smell in your garden now, its not nice

both councils should support the airport on there proposals as to date the vast investment stobart air have contributed to this project

The Councils say that they will support the growth of the airport, but they have not appeared willing to support any of those who have already been turned out of their houses by the extension of the runway. Neither have they offered to help with any of the objections that householders have made with regard to reduction in the value of their properties, or pollution caused by air traffic.

The Airports Commission's interim and final reports will emerge in 2013 and 2015 respectively and any resulting National Policy Statement may have a potentially significant impact on Southend Airport.

too built up , peoples lives affected aircraft almost touching houses in southend road, if the existing airport was just a strip of land the same size and someone said "lets put a major airport on this strip" it would be thrown out, its too biult up and an accident waiting to happen weve been sold up the river

object to all of it, its too built up area planes almost touching houses in southend road healt risk

these questions are misleading railroaded into agreeing with council as questions unclear

I have found the improvements made so far to have been very beneficial to the area and support further expansion

Oncde again we the residentys have been let down by those who are meant to represent us, Ther eius hardly a word in this whole document that takes into account residents and the disruption to their lives. The airport expansion is now bigger than ever declared before.
The noise levels will be totally unacceptable, e.g 90 flights amonth after 11pm is at least 3 a day

53300 flights is about 9 flights an hour one every 6 minutes.
How many residents ahve been consulted about this, how many residents livin gwithin 1 mil eof airpiort have been consulted specifically, how many residents on th eflight paths have been consulted speficially. To send out an email to an interested few is not acceptable consultation, The council is meant to represent its residents!
What happens if an airline company published its annual noise report and it says it has not reached its targets, what on earh ar ethe council to do about it when it has already happened, more smoke and screens for the residents.
Why does this document say "When the document is adopted" when consultation has not finished, what is th epoint of consultation if it is going to be ignored.

I totally object to the proposal of increasing passengers numbers to 2million per annum. This is ridiculous in such a heavily populated area & will cause misery for both residents & workers in the area. The insufferable noise & pollution, not to mention the devaluation of homes & businesses is unjustifiable and I am totally opposed to it.

I totally object to the proposal of increasing passengers numbers to 2million per annum. This is ridiculous in such a heavily populated area & will cause misery for both residents & workers in the area. The insufferable noise & pollution, not to mention the devaluation of homes & businesses is unjustifiable and I am totally opposed to it.

The statements made in Introduction, General Principles and Airport Policies undermine Policy LS1 because they are unsound.

1. False claims relating to employment creation.

In the way that the introduction in this section refers to employment creation it becomes clear that the entire policy of the two councils towards the airport is based on nothing more than wishful thinking. An incorrect assumption that the airport will attract wealth and investment, thereby creating jobs is repeated again and again until this falsehood becomes reality. This incorrect assumption has become a mantra for the councils and many councillors, repeated in an attempt to justify this unsustainable development. The JAAP and its assumptions stand in complete opposition to evidence based policy.

The reality is that the UK aviation tourism industry exports more wealth that it imports. In 2012 this was around £11.2 Billion, which is equivalent to the loss of around 500,000 jobs. By expanding aviation and offering new routes the two councils encourage ever larger numbers of people to travel abroad. Indeed in the first year of operation it is understood that the most popular destination has proven to be Amsterdam with many thousands of people choosing to travel to the Netherlands simply because the airport began to offer this route. Had the route not been offered facility the approximately 105,000 passengers would have spent that disposable income on other things.

For many years this group sought to encourage the two councils to adopt a genuinely sustainable economic model, which included the development of the huge potential for eco-tourism in and around the rivers Thames and Crouch (cycling, cycling off-road and on-road, wind surfing, sailing, kayaking, walking, etc) but instead of choosing an economic model that would keep UK wealth within the UK, the councils adopted a policy of exporting wealth and widening the UK's trade deficit.

Attempts are currently underway to establish the precise details on the numbers of flights taken from the airport in the first year of operation. This group is attempting to establish the number of passengers who have flown abroad, the number of internal flights/passengers and the number of foreign tourists who have used the airport to travel to the UK. We are also working to break this detail down to establish the number of passengers who have moved from using Stansted to using Southend Airport and also the number of passengers who have been tempted to fly abroad simply because the airport is sufficiently close.

Prior to expansion a number of councillors argued that expanded operations at the airport would bring thousands of tourists to the town, filling the local shops with new customers and creating hundreds possibly thousands of jobs. Great play was also made by the airport owners and the two councils that rushing through expansion would enable the airport owners to use the 2012 Olympics to "showcase" the airport.

In reality the truth was very different. Very few foreign tourists have been tempted to use the airport at Southend. It should be noted that Biggin Hill attracted more than 850 special Olympic charter flights, and Cambridge airport a similar number, but we have been unable to establish if the airport at Southend attracted any at all.

This group has asked that Southend Borough Council be required to undertake a post implementation review of the first year of operations at the airport to provide both councils with evidence upon which to base future decisions. We have sought the precise data because only when the two councils are forced to confront the scale of the failure of their projections and predictions will they have any chance of producing a JAAP or any other development policy that creates long term jobs in the area.

The public will have read different data and projections in the local media relating to the number of flights and passengers handled by the airport. At one time people were led to believe that the airport was on target to handle around 1 million passengers in the first 12 months of operation but the number may be a little lower than this. To provide a guide to the employment implications of this we offer a scenario of 100,000 internal passengers and 800,000 passengers who travel abroad. The average UK tourist spend abroad is believed to be £395, which means that those 800,000 passengers will have exported £316 million abroad. This equates to the loss of 12,640 jobs from the Essex and London economy - dwarfing the jobs that it is claimed have been created by airport expansion.


The very last thing that an economy should do when it is suffering the longest period of stagnation in decades, is to encourage its population to export wealth. Instead of encouraging people to holiday abroad, government should be looking at ways to encourage people to holiday within the UK, spending disposable here. The very last thing the two local councils should have done is to discourage people from spending disposable income on entertainment in Essex by encouraging people to travel and take wealth abroad. The scale of wealth exported in the first year may well be equivalent in magnitude to the loss of over 12,000 jobs.

2. Incorrect assumptions regarding noise from aircraft

It is noted that the document says "London Southend Airport must be able to accommodate new and future aircraft models that are quieter and more fuel efficient".
The Secretary of State must be informed of this, often repeated claim and asked to get at the facts. The two local councils should be required to face up to the reality of the situation.
The fact is that the description of the A319s currently operating from the airport as the most modern and fuel efficient is incorrect. These aircraft conform to chapter 3 of annex 16 to chapter 30 of the Chicago Convention. The specification for chapter 4 aircraft was agreed in 2006 and it is the policy agreed this year to "aggressively" replace chapter 3 aircraft with chapter 4 aircraft in order to meet commitments on reducing emissions. The replacement for the current A319 is the A319neo (new engine option). Both Boeing and Airbus offer conversions by re-engineering existing narrow bodied airliners to meet the new standard. The new engines provide greater fuel economy and therefore lower emissions of CO2; but are heavier, larger in diameter and produce less maximum power. This has the effect of increasing the take-off run meaning that the increase in runway length has been negated. It also increases the landing weight and approach speed putting more impact load on the run way.

The operating costs of the A319neo (156 seats) and the A320neo (180 seats) are virtually the same and orders for the A319neo are understood to have dried up. Fewer than 30 A319neos but more than 1,400 A320neos are currently on order. EasyJet has no A319neos on order, having converted their orders for A319s to A320neos. These aircraft are heavier and require a runway longer and stronger than that now at Southend Airport.

If EasyJet were to purchase the Bombardier C series of aircraft only the smaller capacity planes could be used - CE100 (125 seats) and CE300XT (145 seats). Of the aircraft currently or proposing to use Southend, the Fokker 100, Boeing 737-600 series and Boeing 717 are chapter 3 aircraft. The Emraer 195 is a chapter 3 aircraft and requires a runway of 2,179 metres at maximum takeoff weight. Only the turboprop aircraft operating from the airport, such as the ATR 52/72 of Aer Arran have chapter 4 compliance.

The implications of this are that easyJet and other airlines with larger aircraft will eventually stop using Southend airport. The fact that the JAAP makes no reference to this impending tension provides the very strong impression that the two councils have been blind to the various factors that suggest the long term future of the airport is bleak.

It is important to remember that the airport cannot be expanded further in the future. There is a railway and main road at one end and a 1,000 year old, Grade I listed, church at the other end, which the airport owner has guaranteed will never be moved or demolished.

Expanded operations at Southend Airport is what unsustainable development looks like. Expanded operations at Southend Airport is what policy failure looks like.

3. Environmental

Several references are made in this section to environmental considerations (e.g. "expansion is, however, only acceptable if it is undertaken subject to strict environmental controls").
This is grossly misleading to the point of being offensive. The scale of annoyance and distress being caused to the local population by noise from the airport is callous. Around 80% of the population under and close to the flight path, and close to the airport suffer unacceptable noise. Airport operations regularly disturb the sleep of local people and disrupt schools during normal work hours. There has been a constant stream of complaints about the complaints monitoring system used by the airport such that it has lost all credibility.

The reality is that only around 20% of the population close to airport operations do not feel their quality of life is being adversely impacted by expanded operations. Our opinion poll found that those people tended to be elderly but this was not exclusively the case.

Our challenge to the two councils is to arrange an independent opinion survey of those living around the airport and under the flight path. This will demonstrate that few members of the local population agree that "expansion (has)... been undertaken subject to strict environmental controls" and the vast majority of people vigorously object to night flights.

The JAAP document should be reworded to emphasise that the two councils have fought to secure the very weakest environmental controls and protection for the local population. The decision to permit any night flights is seen as a disgrace by the overwhelming majority of residents (but people do accept flights in an emergency). The decision to expand an airport so close to densely populated residential areas was callous in the extreme.

While the airport must be asked to provide an annual report to the council (page 32 para 20) it is vital that the two councils commission an annual report on the views of the local population living within 2 miles of the airport and the flight path (a genuine survey that gives people the chance to express all areas of concern).

Under general principles it is stated that "the much needed development must not be at the expense of a worsening of the environment and quality of life for those living in the area". In the light of the fact that expanded operations have broken this crucial requirement, a requirement that is so important to the local population and is set out so clearly in the JAAP, we demand that immediate steps be taken to reduce the scale of operations at the airport, beginning with a ban on all movements on the airfield prior to 8am and after 10pm.

Turning to the argument that increasing flights at Southend airport will save the local population from travelling to Stansted, and the suggestion in the JAAP that this will reduce the number of miles travelled by car there are two issues that ought to have been considered. The failure to comment upon these two issues suggests that the analysis in support of the JAAP is incomplete:

1. The proximity of Southend airport to the large urban population in south Essex is attracting some people to travel who would not otherwise have done so. Most of these people travel to and from the airport by car. Typically this is by the "kiss and fly" method that involves 4 car journeys.
2. Southend airport now offers more internal flights, demonstrating that far from supporting the use of public transport it is now going into competition with the railways. It must also be noted that the new railway station at the airport is poorly used, indicating that the very significant council taxpayer contribution to airport infrastructure has been squandered.

The two councils should commit to reporting annually on how airport passengers travel to and from airport and the impact the scale of road travel has upon congestion. The JAAP notes that the road network cannot cope with the projected 2 million passengers forecast so annual reporting will serve to provide better information to future administrations and provide a guide to a better informed decision making process.

4. Compensation under 1973 Land Act

On page 33 the JAAP makes reference to the impact of expanded operations on the value of property. The implication is not clear but it is noted that the airport has been in existence for 75 years. What was needed from the two councils was specific and clear guidance for the local population on the scale of noise insulation that could be obtained from the airport owners and the process for making claims under the 1973 Land Act to secure financial compensation for loss of value of property. The two councils have been consistently condemned by the local population for the lack of advice it has given to people. In the light of the substantial scale of financial losses both councils should undertake to explain to all people within 3 miles of the airport and the flight path what their rights are and the process for going about securing compensation. Leaving this task to the residents' action group (SAEN) amounts to a gross dereliction of the duty of care the two councils ought to show to the population that has been hit so hard and cruelly. It is important to note that the scale of compensation owed to the local population might exceed £50million. The expansion of operations at the airport has not merely inflicted huge damage upon the quality of life of local people, it has also stripped £millions from the wealth of the community.

5. Annual Reports

Page 34 indicates the number of reports that the airport owner should produce. In the light of the scale of criticism of the complaints procedure, the councils should ensure that the scale of public dissatisfaction with airport operations should be identified by using an independent reputable opinion polling service. It is vital that the two councils commission an annual report on the views of the local population living within 2 miles of the airport and the flight path (a genuine survey that gives people the chance to express all areas of concern).

The airport owner should also report annually on the number of foreign visitors who travel to the UK, the number of UK residents who travel abroad and the number of passengers who fly to UK destinations that are served by a railway network.

Under "Airport Policies" on Page 35, it is noted that the JAAP supports in principle expansion to 2 million passengers. In the light of statements elsewhere in the JAAP, noting the importance that expansion must not be at the expense of the quality of life of residents, the JAAP should be amended to note that the two councils will work to reduce the scale of operations at the airport until those living close to the airport are satisfied that it no longer causes an unacceptable nuisance. This section of the JAAP should also note that if expanded operations cause a greater out-flow of tourist wealth than income, the two councils will work to reduce the scale of operations, shifting efforts to encouraging people to holiday at home - within the UK.

Airport again assumes all planes are quiet - irrespective of time of day/night
Environmental controls are mentioned, but these have so far been ignored and doubt council have enough bite to enforce any measures - what will residents receive apology? Won't do it again until next time
No mention as to whether expansion can be exceeded, further development - is this the end, doubt it business will continue to exploit opportunity
Freight - might not currently be the focus, but what measures are there to stop this changing?? Stobart will offer slots to whoever pays the most

Number of flights - 53000 equates evenly to approx 6 an hour over a year - one every 10 mins - given take off and landing that's pretty much constant, but nothing about whether this can be increased.

We believe it is not legally compliant because of the totally undemocratic way this matter has been consulted by Rochford and Southend Councils. In spite of the Councils' protestations that residents were consulted, at no time was this the case, no meetings were called by the Council only Leigh Town Council and SAEN arranged meetings which resulted in a unanimous vote against airport expansion by those most affected in Leigh.