SOUTHEND 5
I don't have any inside knowledge but would caution against getting too excited on the Maribor route.
Virtually all airline CEOs describe virtually all new routes as selling better than expected. Telling journalists sales are poor leads people to believe a route will be dropped shortly which discourages new bookings and creates a vicious cycle leading to route closure.
Virtually all airline CEOs describe virtually all new routes as selling better than expected. Telling journalists sales are poor leads people to believe a route will be dropped shortly which discourages new bookings and creates a vicious cycle leading to route closure.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is true, two SEN examples are BH Air (Bourgas) and Newmarket Holidays (Bergamo) which were both put on sale, said to be selling well, then later pulled. However I am yet to see an announcement like this that has rather specific details in it, such as the majority of tickets are being sold in Slovenia, and the proposal to extend the operating period into October with a decision expected in May. Doesn't seem too generic to me...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: looking out of the window
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTNman Negative about southend? Surely not.
I always thought he was a supporter when the airport was an ally in his holy fight against the evil that is Stansted...
I always thought he was a supporter when the airport was an ally in his holy fight against the evil that is Stansted...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue here is the name LTNman posting on this thread and not my posts which are either supportive or neutral towards Southend and Stansted. Maybe I should call myself SENman
Can we now stay on topic please.
Can we now stay on topic please.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Essex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this moment in time there is no planning application in for any development in relation to the taxiway system reconfiguration or rehabilitation !
Could of course be a number of reasons.
1. They have forgot to apply .........................oops
2. They don't think they need to apply.............. oops !
3. The CAA have not signed off or agreed to any proposed plans.
4. They have no intention of completing the long term project and are prepared to "wing it" under its current state due to the financial costs involved.
Could of course be a number of reasons.
1. They have forgot to apply .........................oops
2. They don't think they need to apply.............. oops !
3. The CAA have not signed off or agreed to any proposed plans.
4. They have no intention of completing the long term project and are prepared to "wing it" under its current state due to the financial costs involved.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Essex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that is correct that planning permission is not required on certain works Overslabbing etc however............
If you are upgrading by increasing the width then you do. Also any new taxiway which I believe was talked about at SEN you would have to have the planning permission.
If you are upgrading by increasing the width then you do. Also any new taxiway which I believe was talked about at SEN you would have to have the planning permission.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permitted development
that is correct that planning permission is not required on certain works Overslabbing etc however............
If you are upgrading by increasing the width then you do. Also any new taxiway which I believe was talked about at SEN you would have to have the planning permission.
If you are upgrading by increasing the width then you do. Also any new taxiway which I believe was talked about at SEN you would have to have the planning permission.
Interestingly there is a planning application in for a solar panel (mini) farm lodged 6 weeks ago. This presumably means that no new FBO and/or hangars will be built on the North side adjacent to the disused taxiway opposite Bravo (can't remember if it's Echo or Delta?).
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Essex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats interesting because that was going to be the possible location of a Bristow Helicopters SSR hangar with 2 x Bell helicopters which were possibly going to be stationed at SEN !!
It was kept quiet though probably because the night flight situation with these choppers as they are exempt from any restrictions when operating SSR missions. Training flights however are not exempt from night noise regs.
It was kept quiet though probably because the night flight situation with these choppers as they are exempt from any restrictions when operating SSR missions. Training flights however are not exempt from night noise regs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that Jota will be flying the mighty Shrimpers from SEN to Manchester in their 146 for their vital match against Morecambe on Saturday. A shame that Blackpool is no longer open for large airliners.
Come on you Blues!
Come on you Blues!
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also I thought that you weren't allowed to place solar panels in a field near an airport due to the glare affect it can cause? One in Burnham-on-Crouch recently got refused planning approval because it's on the flight path into SEN.
Also isn't the land to the north about to be redeveloped as part of the Joint Area Action Plan and with it the new Saxon Business Park and expanded aviation maintenance facilities? At the very least that land is zoned for future aviation related uses.
Also isn't the land to the north about to be redeveloped as part of the Joint Area Action Plan and with it the new Saxon Business Park and expanded aviation maintenance facilities? At the very least that land is zoned for future aviation related uses.
Airport Bus to London
The Adria website gives details of the options for onward travel to the centre of London: rail, taxi and airport bus. Rail is quoted as taking 50 minutes, taxi one and a half hours and the "airport bus" two hours. What airport bus?
I have been thinking all along that there must be something going on in the background to account for the otherwise inexplicable lack of progress on the taxiways, and sure enough there is something, and it is in the public domain.
The key is the solar farm. The original planning application was rejected in December 2014. The reasons for rejection, briefly, were flood risk, ecological (badgers and grass snakes) and non compliance with the Joint Area Action Plan designation of that site for future MRO development.
The airport submitted a new planning application 15/00190/FUL on March 27, which attempts to deal with the objections raised by the planning authority. They proposed that the site for a new maintenance hangar should be moved to the northern end of taxiway F, which they claim will be a better location for development than the original JAAP site. That proposition seems to me credible. They also point out that there are still three sites vacant in the existing MRO area.
Of even more interest is the new site plan of how they see future developments of the whole airport. Note the new taxiways the "push back stands" and other parking areas. Page 40 for the map and Page 16 for some commentary, Supporting Documents, Design and Access Statement.
I have only just found this documentation and had time only to skim through it quickly. I find the Rochford District Councils planning material something of a struggle but I will try and post a link shortly unless someone else beats me to it.
The proposed developments (the Indicative Development Plan) form only background to the solar farm proposal and do not constitute a planning application themselves. But it should give a clear guide as to why SEN management may be reluctant to spend money on work that may not form part of the longer term plan.
The key is the solar farm. The original planning application was rejected in December 2014. The reasons for rejection, briefly, were flood risk, ecological (badgers and grass snakes) and non compliance with the Joint Area Action Plan designation of that site for future MRO development.
The airport submitted a new planning application 15/00190/FUL on March 27, which attempts to deal with the objections raised by the planning authority. They proposed that the site for a new maintenance hangar should be moved to the northern end of taxiway F, which they claim will be a better location for development than the original JAAP site. That proposition seems to me credible. They also point out that there are still three sites vacant in the existing MRO area.
Of even more interest is the new site plan of how they see future developments of the whole airport. Note the new taxiways the "push back stands" and other parking areas. Page 40 for the map and Page 16 for some commentary, Supporting Documents, Design and Access Statement.
I have only just found this documentation and had time only to skim through it quickly. I find the Rochford District Councils planning material something of a struggle but I will try and post a link shortly unless someone else beats me to it.
The proposed developments (the Indicative Development Plan) form only background to the solar farm proposal and do not constitute a planning application themselves. But it should give a clear guide as to why SEN management may be reluctant to spend money on work that may not form part of the longer term plan.
Last edited by Tagron; 29th Apr 2015 at 18:58. Reason: Minor addition
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://maps.rochford.gov.uk/DevelopmentControl.aspx?requesttype=parsetemplate&template=D evelopmentControlApplication.tmplt&basepage=DevelopmentContr ol.aspx&Filter=^REFVAL^=%2715/00190/FUL%27
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this: Planning Documents