Police taking photos of campaigners attending a formal meeting with an MP and planners, have added a new dimension to the campaign against the extension of the runway at Southend Airport. Campaigners for Stop Airport Extension Now(SAEN) headed by their chairman, Kiti Theobald, and members of Greenpeace, were photographed by police, both during their meeting with Liberal MP, Norman Baker and as they were leaving. A police spokeswoman said the photographs had been taken to prevent “any crime and disorder taking place”. The MP, Norman Baker declared that the actions of the police were an “outrage”.
There was a flood of letters from the public to the “Southend Echo” the local paper, protesting at the police action, including one from John West, Chairman of Southend CND. He told readers that when he and other members were leafleting for CND in the High Street, he was photographed by a policeman. When he complained, he was similarly told it was to prevent crime and disorder and the photo would not be preserved. He concluded his letter “We in CND have learnt that in Britain those who intend to protest in numbers should be warned: You will not be allowed to march; you will be surrounded by intimidating numbers of police; you may be “kettled” and you will be photographed in order to remind you “we know who you are”. When the day comes, we will find the authorities will have in place all the apparatus for a police state”.
Southend Airport is owned by Stobarts, one of the biggest freight operators in Britain. They want to extend the runway so they can use bigger planes carrying more freight and increasing the passengers to two million a year. In addition to the significant increase in day flights, there will be an increase in night flights carrying freight. As a result there will be an increase in the day and night noise levels and increased toxic emissions and greenhouse gases. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green party in addition to SAEN have been prominent in exposing the deleterious effects the increase in flights would have on CO2 emissions if the plan goes ahead. There have been packed halls to protest against the plan and it is clear the majority of the residents of Southend are against it. The minority supporting it are the business community, who claim it will create more jobs. More than 250 jobs have recently been lost at the airport and with the demand for air travel decreasing significantly, it is likely that this scheme will end up as a white elephant if it is approved. Needless to say the Conservatives on the Southend and Rochford Council are supporting the scheme as are the two prospective Labour parliamentary candidates. Liberal councillors are against the scheme as it stands.
Norman Traub
8 comments
James · 24 July 2009
That is a complete fabrication of the truth. The airport would be looking to dramatically reduce night flights as a condition of planning. The airport could never support a large air freight operation due to its size.
The aircraft able to use the airport would be quieter and more efficient, thus reducing emissions.
The 250 jobs lost were not all from Southend, but an operator with bases at Manchester and Scatsta and Europe.
80% of residents canvassed support the expansion or are indifferent.
Using existing Airport infrastructure in the South East is a more positive solution than building new runways.
The main Lib Dem Party do not condemn or support the plans.
6 People only turned up to deliver anti expansion leaflets.
SAEN themselves are not opposed to 2million passengers per year.
Duncan · 25 July 2009
James, Thanks for your comment: it seems to me that you're staying that everything in the article is correct, except the point about night flights (which, I guess, is subject to planning negotiations).
Why does a longer runway make the planes quieter? Surely the existing planes will make the same noise, and extending the runway will bring more traffic. Even if that extra traffic is quieter than the original, the total will be more.
The articles doesn't claim that the national LibDem organisation has a position: it says that Liberal councillors oppose the scheme. I guess it's the council not Parliament that decides on planning.
James · 25 July 2009
I am sure how you come to the conclusion that I am saying everything is correct?
The airport is suggesting the reduction in night flights.
A longer runway (only 300m) would mean reduced thrust required during take off. The Glide path would be adjusted from 3 degrees to 3.5 degrees. Therefore a steeper approach profile.
The aircraft able to operate would be more modern and fuel efficient than the aircraft able to transport 2 million passengers per year with the current runway.
The DEFRA noise map published illustrates this clearly.
An Instrument landing system installed on runway 06 which would mean a more stable and uniform approach than the existing non precision approach.
Increased Runway End Safety Areas.
There wouldn't be a significant increase in the amount of traffic, but a change of types.
A successful airport would encourage investment in an area desperate for it, whilst also providing training through local colleges and Universities for skilled jobs at the airport.
As I explained before, the majority are in favour of expansion. Of 4000 people who responded to a questionnaire carried out at the beginning of 2009. 80% were in favour.
There is a vocal minority through SAEN, who have confused agendas.
It frustrates me (as a resident of Southend), when articles distort the truth about the plans for the airport, that will benefit our town and add to the existing 1300 people that work at the airport already.
The airports own website details the plans.
With protests at London City and Stansted, which have safety and security implications. I don't blame the police for being proactive. They would be criticised more if they weren't.
Norman Traub · 26 July 2009
Reply to James
The purpose of extending the runway, if the owners of the airport, Stobart, can obtain the permission, is to use bigger planes so they can carry more freight and two million passengers a year. The stepping up of the number of flights of these bigger aircraft to carry the much larger number of passengers and more freight, will increase the noise, the CO2 emissions and pollution, not decrease them as James asserts. The size of the runway would be similar to that of Southampton Airport, which already has nearly 2 million passengers a year and where they often have planes scheduled to take off or land every 5 minutes. How can James say SAEN are not opposed to 2 million passengers a year using the airport, when they go into detail on their website exposing the whole idea of such an increase? SAEN explains “Assuming 100 passengers per plane, you would need a flight taking off or landing every 26 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to reach the airport’s target of 2million passengers per year. However , as Southend Council has said that they will not allow an increase in night flights, a flight would have to take off or land every 17 minutes between 7am and 11pm”. There is no way that the increased fuel efficiency of the bigger planes, which James claims for the bigger aircraft, could offset the increase in noise, pollution and CO2 emissions which the big increase in air traffic would produce.
As regards air freight, James says the airport could not support a large air freight operation due to its size. There is every reason to believe however, that Stobarts whose core business is freight, would want some increase in airfreight at Southend Airport to add to the provision of rail-freight, warehousing and road distribution services that it intends to provide for future British and European importers using the London Gateway Port project that will be built on the land of the old Shellhaven oil refinery at Coryton. As regards night flights, a reader, G.D. Markwell( in correspondence with the Southend Echo 30th April) had this to say “What is more relevant is what further(eg night airfreight operation plans) information is being held back for political/ tactical reasons till a later date-particularly how many allowed 900 night flights per month they envisage activating.”
To deal with the more than 250 jobs lost at Southend airport to which I drew attention, SAEN gives some details “Flightline went into administration the day after the sale of the airport to the Stobarts group with the loss of 235 jobs” and Ipeco, one of the largest employers at the airport made around 30 redundancies in 2008. As regards the increase in the number of jobs for which James hopes, the experience of other small airports, where there has been runway extension expansion is that there is only a marginal contribution to job numbers. A SAEN document on employment at the airport if there is expansion of air traffic, makes the point that if there is an increased level of demand for the runway from paying customers and the proposed expansion of the maintenance, repair and overhaul business, other uses such as flying clubs and the Southend Air Show would be given a lower priority. The loss of flying clubs and other businesses on the eastern side of the airport would mean loss of jobs. The SAEN document then goes on to make the very important point that in the current economic recession and credit crunch, the likelihood of finding the companies to move into the new buildings with the expansion plans for the airport is to say the least extremely remote. So, where will there be an increase in jobs.?
James says 80% of residents canvassed at the beginning of 2009 supported the expansion of the airport or are indifferent. However, SAEN give figures for the second phase of consultation, which commenced on the 16th February and ended on the 15th May As of 14th May, 5796(79%) consulted objected to the expansion, 1148(16%) supported it and 386(5%)commented on the plans, but did not commit themselves. I attended 2 packed meetings, one at Eastwood and the other at the Leigh Community Centre, where the overwhelming majority opposed the expansion plans. How can James now assert that the majority of Southend residents are in favour of the expansion?
As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, Norman Baker MP, the Liberal Democrats transport spokesman said the party nationally is against airport expansion and Councillor Graham Longley, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Southend Council confirmed that they were opposed to the plans as they now stood. Clearly, James is wrong when he asserts the main Lib Dem Party do not condemn or support the plans.
Finally, there is the deleterious impact on the environment that airport expansion will bring. It is entirely unacceptable to reduce green belt area to build unnecessary additional office space and industrial units. Public safety zones appear not to be taken seriously. The traffic congestion on the already clogged roads would increase and an existing road, Eastwoodbury Lane would be closed.
Norman Traub
Admin. · 26 July 2009
Hi James,
You wrote that the new runway would be able to handle two million passengers a year. According to Wikipedia, there were 44,000 passengers last year. That's more than a fifty-fold increase. How can such an increase, or even a fraction of it, not lead to an increase in noise? If you have the same number of flights landing, then don't the plane need to be larger?
Duncan.
James · 28 July 2009
*Runway extension is for more Passenger flights not freight. Large freight aircraft could not operate at Southend.
Southend already operates a small freight operation. This is not due to be expanded greatly.
*Kiti Theobald herself has stated she is not against 2 million passengers per year, but against the runway extension - Ask her!
*There would be on average 4 movements per hour in 2020 over an 18 hour day. Thats club, cargo, business jets etc. On average 8 per hour during peak season at 'peak' times. These peak times would be outside peak road times.
Today the airport averages 3 per hour.
*Flightline job loses were across Europe, a small percentage of jobs were at Southend where the offices were based and incredibly sad for all involved. No doubt Ipeco will start taking people on once global markets recover.
*Who says the airshow will be affected? Strange someone so concerned about pollution is worried about that.
* The flying clubs are always a lower priority than commercial traffic. They are a lower flight category, but have a place at Southend. The airport has stated the existing clubs are more than welcome, and may be relocated to a more suitable part of the airport in the future.
Again its strange that someone so concerned about noise and pollution is worried about clubs that promote flying as a hobby?
* Yes there is a recession hitting the aviation industry, and manufacturing industry, service industry etc etc. But it will recover. The airport is looking to achieve 2 million passengers per year by 2020. Not overnight.
*If you analyse the responses on the JAAP, they are largely the same argument 'Cut and Pasted' over and over again in each catogory. Not addressing anything that had not already been considered.
JAAP was not a referendum.
*The meetings you refer to were not full of objectors. The people were there to listen to a minority group spouting scaremongering. I was there too.
*The national Lib dem party have said this is a local matter to which they do not wish to get involved with.
*Eastwoodbury lane would not be closed, but diverted. the Lane is currently closed for departures and certain arrivals. With a diversion, this would enable freeflow and less congestion.
Duncan,
The airport could operate now with passengers with the older RJ and BAE146 type aircraft. These hold only around 90 passengers and range is restricted. By making a short extension, the runway could support the Airbus 319 fully loaded (around 120 passengers). far more modern, quieter and economical.
Yes there will be more movements, but with an extension, the movements would be with quieter more efficient aircraft rather than older aircraft.
By using Southend, you cut track miles down on aircraft flying into the larger london hubs. Less holding, and less road journeys made by people in the vicinity.
Is that not better than building new runways and for the environment?
The increase in runway length would also increase safety. With Instrument landing System on runway 06 and increased Runway End Safety Areas.
The physical length of a runway is completely different from the usable length once you take into account obstacles etc.
The CAA do not allow any extensions that do not comply to heavy safety regulations.
I would suggest people visit the airport and www.flysouthend2012.com for real answers. Not the scaremongering that SAEN produce.
Norman Traub · 29 July 2009
James,
You have confirmed that there would be a big increase in flights from the airport, 3- 8 per hour using larger aircraft for more passengers. You say that the runway extension is for more passenger flights, not freight. As the airport already carries freight, with more flights it is a reasonable to believe that Stobarts, whose core business is freight, would also wish to its increase carriage of freight. The essence of the argument of those who oppose extending the runway is that it will increase the noise, the CO2 emissions and pollution.The bigger aircraft, which James claims are quieter than the smaller planes are just as noisy when landing or taking off.
An extension of Southend airport was rejected in 1966 by the government on the grounds that it was too environmentally unfriendly. Today, forty five years later, when the world’s greatest authorities on climate change caused by global warming, have urged all of us to cut down on the emissions of fossil fuels, to which aviation contributes a significant proportion, the case against extension is much more compelling. It is unacceptable to reduce the green built area to build unnecessary additional office space and industrial units. Establishing new link roads will only add to the congestion on the roads which already exists.
The recession, which is reducing the demands for air travel can only lead to a fall in demand for jobs in the aviation industry. The figure of an expected rise in jobs given by those in favour of airport, is plucked out of the air.
It does James’s no good, nor his cause, to rubbish the views of the overwhelming majority of Southend residents, who were consulted on the JAAP and rejected the airport expansion. He only discredits himself further when he attempts to convert a majority at both public meetings, which I attended against extension of the runway, into a minority. One just has to read the reports in the press on these meetings or follow their correspondence columns, to know that the majority in the audiences were against the expansion of the airport.
The Liberal Democrats nationally are against airport expansion and Councillor Graham Longley their leader on Southend Council stated that the party locally was against the plans for airport expansion as they stood.
James · 29 July 2009
It is clear neither of us will ever be on the same side with this.
If I told you Black was Black no doubt you would say it was blue.
I did not rubbish the comments made on JAAP. But JAAP was not a referendum despite SAEN and yourself making it to be. If you read the responses they do not address the individual subjects asked.
To say they are the overwhelming majority is I am afraid incorrect. But I shall allow you to believe your version if it makes you feel more comfortable.
It is usual for a vocal minority to comment during consultations.
The extra traffic at peak times would be half that of the Tesco Extra. Of course there will be some more traffic on the roads, but if we banned all new developments in Southend on that basis you might as well declare Southend a ghost town now.
I fail to see how diverting a road to allow free flow is adding to congestion. But again I shall allow you to believe that too.
The airport will expand its operations. There will be more aircraft and yes 'some' more noise. Its whether people want the more efficient, quieter aircraft that carry more people on a safer longer runway with stricter night controls. Or to carry the passengers in smaller older aircraft more frequently on the smaller runway. Stobart would want a return, and without more passengers it is likely they will look to freight if the runway is not extended.
You assume alot if you believe Stobart's intentions are all about freight at Southend, but again I shall allow you to believe in that.
I shall have to agree to disagree with you Mr Traub. If you get your way, I won't look to you for advice when the town is struggling more than now, and investors give Southend a wide berth.
I will however (when the airport expands) enjoy using our airport. Not having to add to road traffic by not gong to Stansted or Gatwick. I shall also enjoy the extra investment and jobs created in the area. Maybe I shall see you in the check in queue? Like most people against airports, I have no doubt you use them.