|
Post by devonian on May 26, 2009 21:42:59 GMT
Strangely enough, I did just that as soon as I had read Roche's message. On going to the story I was prevented from posting a reply because "comment on this article is now closed". I'll have to wait until the next one, I guess..... However those replies that had been posted were all in support of the airport's development. Having seen how often the Echo gets stories wrong about Southend United Football club, I hope they are wrong on this one!
|
|
|
Post by expressflight on May 27, 2009 6:40:26 GMT
The Echo story still seems to be open for comments this morning. If you click on Southend News on their homepage that story will appear in the list of current stories and the 'Have Your Say' button seems to still give the chance to respond. They don't normally close a story this early. Try again Devonian???
|
|
|
Post by devonian on May 27, 2009 8:41:01 GMT
Bingo! Thanks Expressflight, I've managed it this time. I notice that some crazy additions have now joined the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by roche on May 27, 2009 15:40:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by roche on May 28, 2009 16:17:35 GMT
Another article in the Echo today, again things not going in favour of the airport, with the Lib Dems stating that based on available information, they will not support plans to extend the runway: www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/southend/4400039.Lib_Dems_say_they_will_oppose_airport/I highlighted my concerns about the way the lack of involvement of the airports management in posts on this forum in late March and despite the build up of anti airport sentiment since then, it seems to me that despite our friend Tarquin's assurance that 'the airport are very much on the offensive' (post 21), they have done very little to defend their position. We hear little quotes from Alistair Welch stating that there will be no freight flights during the night, but as the Lib Dems quite correctly point out, there has been not a word from airport management about how they propose to allay people's fears about night flights, extra traffic and noise and pollution. How can they expect people to make a reasoned judgement on such a major issue when many of the facts/proposals are not available ! All this information should have been available at the start of the consultation process...let's hope it's not too late, although as things stand at the moment, it doesn't look too promising. rant over.
|
|
|
Post by devonian on May 28, 2009 21:23:06 GMT
There does seem to be a deafening silence from the Airport management and owners. Maybe Expressflight can have some influence upon them? It's depressing to see the project slipping away without a whimper........
|
|
|
Post by expressflight on May 29, 2009 7:24:26 GMT
Well, let's put it this way, I certainly haven't been sitting on my hands over the past few months but all I can do is make suggestions and offer an opinion on the various topics as they arise. All I can really say about LSACL's apparent reticence to vigorously put their case before the public at this stage is that they do have their reasons. I know this for a fact, although I am not privvy to those reasons, but it must be obvious to all that they are not going to let their plans fail by default (Stobart are not fools after all) and at the appropriate time will be providing the 'push' required. There are things which I do not understand not being done, for example the new noise contour map has been available for at least 10 days and yet has not been put into the public domain. I have suggested various courses of action which I feel would counter the 'antis' distortions and have had "vigorous exchanges", one could say, on certain points. I don't want to say too much and it is difficult sometimes to know where to draw the line between keeping this forum informed and revealing confidences. I do not, by the way, work for LSACL nor receive any remuneration from them or anyone working for them. I do what little I can do, using what knowledge and contacts I have, in the hope that SEN will again be restored to an airport worthy of the name and to stop my brain vegetating! As far as the LibDems statement is concerned, the whole thing is available on www.southendlibdems.co.uk and careful reading of it reveals more tacit support for the runway extension than the Echo story suggests (although the LibDems are obviously not too strong on grammar or punctuation!). I don't think LSACL are biting their nails over this development and I don't believe they feel frustrated at the way things are going. To sum up, a lot is going on behind the scenes and we can play our part by expressing our own personal views in terms of letters to the Echo and in using the 'Have Your Say' button on their website. As for the project ".... slipping away without a whimper.", no, that is definitely not the case although on the face of it it may look rather like it. I hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by devonian on May 29, 2009 17:26:36 GMT
Yes, it does help. Thank you for such an extensive response. Most reassuring.
Fingers crossed now.....
|
|
|
Post by roche on May 29, 2009 22:54:29 GMT
Thanks for the response Expressflight. I'm sure there are all sorts of things going on 'in the background', but I think it's going to take a huge effort to persuade many of the objectors that the expansion is a positive thing for the area. I had a quick read through some of the JAAP responses and some of them actually made me laugh out loud. One lady was worried how the infrastructure would cope with the proposed 102 million passengers per year being proposed and there were many other responses equally well wide of the mark. Clearly, the airport haven't got their message across to the public and as a result we now have councillors running scared of supporting any expansion. Whatever the reasons behind the silence from airport mangement, I believe they've made things very difficult for themselves by adopting this approach. I just hope they have a compelling case in favour of expansion available within the coming weeks.
|
|
|
Post by expressflight on May 30, 2009 6:49:10 GMT
I totally agree that the airport "... haven't got their message across to the public ...", but that's because they have not yet tried to do so. I would be more worried if they had made huge efforts to do so and had then failed to convince some of the objectors (the diehards will never be persuaded) of its benefits. I think we are all agreed at having been surprised at the virtual silence from LSACL, but it is a planned silence and not silence by default. As far as the wildness of some of the JAAP responses is concerned, I think this is partly what the LibDems refer to when they say that they want to wait until the firm proposals can be discussed "without rancour or emotional and unfounded accusations being made." Note that they also don't rule out supporting a runway extension when they say "... answers which could allow us to consider improved runway access to the benefit of the residents ...". It may be that the LibDem situation is one of the things going on behind the scenes.
Incidentally, does the fact that the LibDems have declared their intention to vote against the JAAP submission plan bar them from voting on the matter?
|
|
|
Post by roche on Jun 6, 2009 10:39:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by goldhanger on Jun 21, 2009 9:58:58 GMT
Last week I received an email from Southend Airport having filled in a response card to the future development of the Airport.
"Good Morning,
You recently sent us a response card indicating that you supported the progressive development of our local airport. You may be interested to hear that you were one of 4,000 people who responded to the airport in total. Of all the responses we received, 80% were in support of the airport’s development.
Interestingly, last Summer an independent opinion poll which we commissioned, carried out in Southend and Rochford, also showed over 80% of people polled supported the development of the airport.
Following some articles and letters in the press from people who are not in favour, we have been approached by a number of people who are fed up of reading ‘misleading information’ about the airport and from some who are ‘scaremongering’ about the impacts the airport may have in future. The people who have approached us are looking to set up a group of people who are supporters of the airport’s measured development, to share clear and concise facts about it and to set up a website also. They plan, I understand to give local businesses and individuals the opportunity to put their comments on the website and to demonstrate their support by joining the group.
If you would like to be put in touch with this group, please do contact us by email - enquiries@southendairport.com and let us know and we will pass them your details.
I do hope you are able to find the time to show your support for our local airport – we know that the airport holds the key to a huge programme of regeneration and investment in the area and to the future success of Southend itself. With your help we can ensure the support of the silent majority carries the day!
Kind regards
Sam Petrie
London Southend Airport Samantha Petrie
Graduate Development Programme
London Southend Airport Co. Ltd"
If other members of this group are interested may I suggest that you email
enquiries@southendairport.com
|
|
|
Post by expressflight on Jun 22, 2009 6:13:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by roche on Jun 23, 2009 11:24:27 GMT
A pre-planning application has been submitted to Southend Council re the possible runway extension. Based on a recent letter in the Echo from both Alistair Welch and the vicar at St Laurence Church, I was under the impression that the church was fully aware of the proposals and supported them. Based on todays Echo article that doesn't appear to be the case. This will be great ammunition for SAEN and their friends. To just submit this pre-planning application without any explanatory press release seems yet another mistake to me and will just strengthen the resolve of the anti-airport brigade. www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/southend/4452482.Airport_plan__Demolish_church_wall_and_cottages/
|
|
|
Post by jon on Jun 23, 2009 12:18:57 GMT
|
|