SOUTHEND - 3 The new beginning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Story in the local rag
Hundreds of homeowners seeking compensation from Southend Airport (From Echo)
Hundreds of homeowners seeking compensation from Southend Airport (From Echo)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the view here will be that if you don’t like aircraft noise then don’t buy a house near an airport.
The other view will be that Southend is becoming a radically different airport from what it was and that local residents could not have predicted that a runway extension would have been built that would allow for a massive increase in passenger jets.
Another view could be that Stobart’s investment in Southend, which was done for profit, has blighted lives and devalued homes and so Stobart should pay compensation.
The other view will be that Southend is becoming a radically different airport from what it was and that local residents could not have predicted that a runway extension would have been built that would allow for a massive increase in passenger jets.
Another view could be that Stobart’s investment in Southend, which was done for profit, has blighted lives and devalued homes and so Stobart should pay compensation.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 17th Nov 2012 at 17:34.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chester
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't believe that the local residents close to the airport didn't think when they bought the house that the airport was never going to be expanded or made bigger. I live about 3/4 miles from the end of 06 and I don't find the noise too loud. After all you can only hear them for around 30 seconds!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, exactly the same around LHR, but to such an extent that it is actually impinging on the nation's economy and prosperity.
Sometimes airport expansion has to happen, so generous compensation must be paid.
Having said that, there appears to be a tendency not to pay adequate attention to the circumstances and how they might change, when buying a house near an airport, main road, railway, pub, nightclub, busy town centr, etc.. If one buys in these locations, it is patently obvious that it won't be particularly quiet.
Sometimes airport expansion has to happen, so generous compensation must be paid.
Having said that, there appears to be a tendency not to pay adequate attention to the circumstances and how they might change, when buying a house near an airport, main road, railway, pub, nightclub, busy town centr, etc.. If one buys in these locations, it is patently obvious that it won't be particularly quiet.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Nov 2012 at 18:33.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pain in the R's
No doubt the view here will be that if you don’t like aircraft noise, then don’t buy a house near an airport.
Than's correct..There was talk of building homes on the old Pontings site next to Blackpool Airport, had that come to pass - It's would have been there own fault if BLK expanded.
Another view could be that Stobart’s investment in Southend, which
was done for profit, has blighted lives and devalued homes and so Stobart should
pay compensation.
Two questions..
How many take off and landings from SEN per day now in off peak season?, and for that matter on peak season?.
If a jey passed over, how long would you hear significant noise?..One minute, or a few seconds?.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 17th Nov 2012 at 18:35.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be fair to say that that some house prices will fall due to activities at Southend airport. For a start some homes are now nearer the runway. Also compensation should not be based on flying activities now but on Stobarts own predictions for the future.
We have to remember that Stobart could make a lot of money out of Southend and for that money many residents will have to suffer more noise. It is irrelevant that they chose to live near Southend Airport because the airport is becoming a different beast. Also it was part of the planning permission that compensation would be payable.
We have to remember that Stobart could make a lot of money out of Southend and for that money many residents will have to suffer more noise. It is irrelevant that they chose to live near Southend Airport because the airport is becoming a different beast. Also it was part of the planning permission that compensation would be payable.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 17th Nov 2012 at 19:10.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: essex
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the new extention has been completed the terminal will consist of<12 checkin desks,3 selfcheck in desks,6 dep gates,6 passport control desks,3 catering areas, 1 potential catering/bar area,3 retail areas,1 large duty free area,1 convenience store, and seating for 672 passengers in all over the 6 dept zones. More details can be found on the ROCHFORD COUNCIL planing web site.Lets hope we can get more airlines to use SEN in the future,and make all this hard work worth while
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be fair to say that that some house prices
will fall due to activities at Southend airport. For a start some homes are now
nearer the runway.
Now I would like to see how far I get trying for compensation..I know I was living on the edge of the green-belt, I also knew the green-belt was ripe for expansion.
Buy a house near or next to an airport and hope for no expansion, and you could get disappointed at any airport.
just how much traffic is there from SEN anyway?, it's not like being under the MAN or LHR flightpath.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 894
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say there are currently no more than around twenty commercial arrivals/departures per day.
This story is a re-hash of an earlier one and when it first came up there appeared to be a small increase in house prices in the relevant area.
This story is a re-hash of an earlier one and when it first came up there appeared to be a small increase in house prices in the relevant area.
LTNman
I would be interested to know the date of the item concerning Eastwoodbury Church on the SEN website and whereabouts it is on the site as I could not find it myself.
Briefly, as I understand it, the CAA considers the church an acceptable obstacle due to the fact that runway 06 now has an ILS and the threshold is further south-west than prior to the runway extension, making the church some 200m beyond the threshold. Perhaps the SEN website item refers to this work. It is news to me if the the airport and the CAA are now working on additional measures regarding the church and the date of that item would clarify the situation somewhat.
As far as homeowners receiving compensation for loss of house value resulting from the runway extension/increased activity is concerned, I personally don't have a problem with that at all. As has been pointed out it is their legal right to do so and I'm sure that Stobarts will have made provision for such payments it they are supported by firm evidence of loss of property value.
Those on here who have not followed the fortunes of SEN over the years can be forgiven for assuming that the runway extension came out of the blue only in the past four years or so. This is not the case as the plan to physically relocate the church and extend the runway goes back to 2001 and in the 1980 & 90s SEN played host to Electras and Viscounts etc. operating night mail/cargo flights with 30+ nightly movements at that time. Indeed, the joke at SEN then was that if the runway needed resurfacing it would be done during the day, not at night. So noise greater than is the case now was 'suffered' by its neighbours until quite recently and the prospect of it eventually becoming busier in general through expansion is nothing new.
I would be interested to know the date of the item concerning Eastwoodbury Church on the SEN website and whereabouts it is on the site as I could not find it myself.
Briefly, as I understand it, the CAA considers the church an acceptable obstacle due to the fact that runway 06 now has an ILS and the threshold is further south-west than prior to the runway extension, making the church some 200m beyond the threshold. Perhaps the SEN website item refers to this work. It is news to me if the the airport and the CAA are now working on additional measures regarding the church and the date of that item would clarify the situation somewhat.
As far as homeowners receiving compensation for loss of house value resulting from the runway extension/increased activity is concerned, I personally don't have a problem with that at all. As has been pointed out it is their legal right to do so and I'm sure that Stobarts will have made provision for such payments it they are supported by firm evidence of loss of property value.
Those on here who have not followed the fortunes of SEN over the years can be forgiven for assuming that the runway extension came out of the blue only in the past four years or so. This is not the case as the plan to physically relocate the church and extend the runway goes back to 2001 and in the 1980 & 90s SEN played host to Electras and Viscounts etc. operating night mail/cargo flights with 30+ nightly movements at that time. Indeed, the joke at SEN then was that if the runway needed resurfacing it would be done during the day, not at night. So noise greater than is the case now was 'suffered' by its neighbours until quite recently and the prospect of it eventually becoming busier in general through expansion is nothing new.
Last edited by Expressflight; 18th Nov 2012 at 07:37. Reason: date of proposed moving of church and runway extension added
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight
Have a look at the bottom of the page
Environmental Responsibility | LSA - Community Relations & News | London Southend Airport
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes ... I recall BAF with their significant fleet of VC8's, HPR7's and Shorts Sheds being based and actively busy at SEN, then there were the evenings when much of the country, including STN & NWI would be fogged out, SEN would be open for Air UK to divert much of their fleet in to ... Air UK never bothered to divert to LTN that much!
For many a day SEN has been a maintenance facility, Heavylift would put their Belfast's and Airbus's in to there, also a maintenance facility for adhoc geriatric jets such as B707's & B727's, before those days, my ex boss, the much loved and famous Sir Freddie Laker based himself and his Aviation Traders at SEN, such aircraft as the 'Accountant' were built at SEN, later on there was National Airways based there and thereafter Flightline and BWA, SEN has an interesting history to say the least.
And regarding a runway extension, for many a year the talk has been "What are we going to do with that church?".
For many a day SEN has been a maintenance facility, Heavylift would put their Belfast's and Airbus's in to there, also a maintenance facility for adhoc geriatric jets such as B707's & B727's, before those days, my ex boss, the much loved and famous Sir Freddie Laker based himself and his Aviation Traders at SEN, such aircraft as the 'Accountant' were built at SEN, later on there was National Airways based there and thereafter Flightline and BWA, SEN has an interesting history to say the least.
And regarding a runway extension, for many a year the talk has been "What are we going to do with that church?".
LTNman
Thanks for the link.
I should imagine it refers to the situation that existed between 2003, when the CAA accepted the position of the church with the then runway provided the traffic mix at SEN didn't change significantly, and the time of the runway extension and the associated relocation of the threshold and navaid/lighting upgrades. I don't think there is anything further being considered with regard to the church, although I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise.
Thanks for the link.
I should imagine it refers to the situation that existed between 2003, when the CAA accepted the position of the church with the then runway provided the traffic mix at SEN didn't change significantly, and the time of the runway extension and the associated relocation of the threshold and navaid/lighting upgrades. I don't think there is anything further being considered with regard to the church, although I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a condition of operating at London Southend Airport that all aircraft operators accept that St. Laurence Church and its graveyard are permanent obstacles within the runway instrument strip, and that they take account of them to the extent necessary to ensure a safe operation.
The Church roof is at 78ft AMSL at 94m from runway centreline, and its spire at 114ft AMSL, 105m from the runway centreline at approximately 200m north-east of runway 06 threshold. The obstacle is lit (by an adjacent pole) with a single red obstruction light.
A frangible security fence is placed around Church graveyard up to 9ft AGL(56ft amsl), and at closest, 49m from Runway centreline.
The risks posed by the Church are subject to an annual review by the Aerodrome License Holder and are a standing Agenda item to the Airport User Group meeting.
The Church roof is at 78ft AMSL at 94m from runway centreline, and its spire at 114ft AMSL, 105m from the runway centreline at approximately 200m north-east of runway 06 threshold. The obstacle is lit (by an adjacent pole) with a single red obstruction light.
A frangible security fence is placed around Church graveyard up to 9ft AGL(56ft amsl), and at closest, 49m from Runway centreline.
The risks posed by the Church are subject to an annual review by the Aerodrome License Holder and are a standing Agenda item to the Airport User Group meeting.
With a railway at one end of the runway (protected by a berm), a dual carriageway at the other end and a church listed as an obstacle within the runway instrument strip I'm sure all users of SEN have appropriate briefings for their flight crew to take account of, and mitigate the inherent dangers. Add to this the fact that the runway is officially condsidered "narrow" for operators of Code C aircraft (including the A319's flown by Easyjet) and you definitely have a challenging airport to operate from.
Last edited by asdf1234; 18th Nov 2012 at 08:40. Reason: Add comments about width
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a condition of operating at London Southend Airport that all aircraft operators accept that St. Laurence Church and its graveyard are permanent obstacles within the runway instrument strip, and that they take account of them to the extent necessary to ensure a safe operation.
That is legal speak for if your aircraft hits the church on a missed approach or for whatever reason don't sue the airport because we have just told you it is there despite it infringing various safeguarding requirements.
Maybe the airport should also get the passengers to sign wavers just before boarding aircraft heading into Southend.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 18th Nov 2012 at 09:58.
asdf1234
It's sometimes said that longtime SEN supporters on this forum get too defensive and and dismiss the postings of critics excessively. Perhaps that is true from time to time, but some posts are just so exaggerated as to merit nothing less. Your last is a case in point.
The railway line that you mention is some 320m beyond the end of LDA on 06, with a fully paved RESA between the two. The dual carriageway is 300m beyond the end of LDA on 24 and has a 240m RESA between the two. I would suggest that the facts clearly show that your contention that these two features make SEN "a challenging airport to operate from" are simply nonsense. I had assumed that you were an aviation professional but I'm now beginning to doubt that.
Yes, the church is an obstacle infringing the instrument strip and is rightly promulgated as such. Can you name one operator who has chosen not to use SEN nor designate it as alternate because of this? EasyJet are hardly renowned for their recklessness as far as I'm aware.
Both LCY and SOU have runways defined as 'narrow' and both also have substantial physical features beyond their runway ends at lesser distances than does SEN, so why are you not scaremongering about them? After all, both have substantially more traffic than SEN does currently.
The reality is that some posters are by nature pro-SEN and others are anti-SEN, but both should surely try to restrict themselves to the facts of the matter under discussion.
It's sometimes said that longtime SEN supporters on this forum get too defensive and and dismiss the postings of critics excessively. Perhaps that is true from time to time, but some posts are just so exaggerated as to merit nothing less. Your last is a case in point.
The railway line that you mention is some 320m beyond the end of LDA on 06, with a fully paved RESA between the two. The dual carriageway is 300m beyond the end of LDA on 24 and has a 240m RESA between the two. I would suggest that the facts clearly show that your contention that these two features make SEN "a challenging airport to operate from" are simply nonsense. I had assumed that you were an aviation professional but I'm now beginning to doubt that.
Yes, the church is an obstacle infringing the instrument strip and is rightly promulgated as such. Can you name one operator who has chosen not to use SEN nor designate it as alternate because of this? EasyJet are hardly renowned for their recklessness as far as I'm aware.
Both LCY and SOU have runways defined as 'narrow' and both also have substantial physical features beyond their runway ends at lesser distances than does SEN, so why are you not scaremongering about them? After all, both have substantially more traffic than SEN does currently.
The reality is that some posters are by nature pro-SEN and others are anti-SEN, but both should surely try to restrict themselves to the facts of the matter under discussion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vulcanised
I would say there are currently no more than around twenty commercial
arrivals/departures per day.
I am not sure what the big deal is anyway..SEN is expanding and (IF) some minor inconvenience is encountered in that process...I am sure Stobart has a war chest for such contingencies.
Originally Posted by Expressflight
The reality is that some posters are by nature pro-SEN and others are
anti-SEN, but both should surely try to restrict themselves to the facts of the
matter under discussion.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 18th Nov 2012 at 11:51.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S
Expressflight, I posted facts taken from SEN's own website, which either reflect or are taken from the UK-AIP.
I could have added that another complicatng factor at SEN is the gen avn traffic in the circuit when Easyjet perform overhead arrivals when the SSR is u/s (as has happened recently and NOTAM'd accordingly). However personal observation instead of recounting fact would have attracted invective from the usual quarters so I witheld that comment and purely posted facts.
Aborted take-offs resulting in runway overrun, landing long and fast with subsequent runway overrun and runway execursion on both take-off and landing are not uncommon. Operators at SEN will have looked at the dangers (railway, dual carriageway and church) and planned accordingly or as I posted previously:
An electrified railway line runs along the eastern boundary of the airport immediately beyond the ILS Localiser array
For larger aircraft types note that taxiways are narrow (15m).
The runway may potentially be considered “narrow” for use by certain larger Code C aircraft (e.g. A319 etc.,) – check with the aircraft flight manual as necessary.
Aborted take-offs resulting in runway overrun, landing long and fast with subsequent runway overrun and runway execursion on both take-off and landing are not uncommon. Operators at SEN will have looked at the dangers (railway, dual carriageway and church) and planned accordingly or as I posted previously:
I'm sure all users of SEN have appropriate briefings for their flight crew to take account of, and mitigate the inherent dangers
Pre-Stobart, Southend was tiddly with very few commercial passengers flights, and an expectation by anyone buying a house near Southend that it would remain a very quiet airport.
It's been transformed into an airport capable of (and within a few years likely to deliver) 2 million passengers per year. Ten years ago, the expectation was that Southend would remain a small quiet landing strip with very few commercial services. Furthermore, given the past, it is likely that in 5 years time Southend airport might ask the relevant Govt body to permit more than 2 million passengers per year.
Anyone buying a house near an airport is thinking not just about noise now, but about likely noise in 10 years time. If the *expectation* by a house buyer is that noise will be significantly greater in 10 years time, then better not to buy the house at all and look at a different area. While the number of houses on the market remains static, demand falls - the result is that house prices either fall or do not rise as much as in surrounding areas.
It's been transformed into an airport capable of (and within a few years likely to deliver) 2 million passengers per year. Ten years ago, the expectation was that Southend would remain a small quiet landing strip with very few commercial services. Furthermore, given the past, it is likely that in 5 years time Southend airport might ask the relevant Govt body to permit more than 2 million passengers per year.
Anyone buying a house near an airport is thinking not just about noise now, but about likely noise in 10 years time. If the *expectation* by a house buyer is that noise will be significantly greater in 10 years time, then better not to buy the house at all and look at a different area. While the number of houses on the market remains static, demand falls - the result is that house prices either fall or do not rise as much as in surrounding areas.