The Charlie holding points have changed since that photo was taken. Charlie 1 is now further East than shown and is located at the point where the disused road joins the taxiway. Charlie 2 is now located a further 200m East, at the point where the taxiway joins the main apron (not shown on LTNman's photo).

Very interesting as LTNman's photos shows my parents old house the one located right at the very corner closest to the runway, they had that home until around the early 90's I believe, so a little while ago now, as we know Southend wasn't busy then, but there was still some movements and noise, but as they said what did you expect you live right by an airport!! They have said when you buy a property by an airport there may be a chance it expands and grows even back then they didn't know what might be round the corner, if all of a sunden it got busier they said you would have to accept it. It's the risk when you buy by an airport. I remember their cat was called pussy pilot as he used to enjoy going over the fence and onto the airfield most days ;).

R.I.P pussy pilot

I agree with the posts above that the best course of action would be to buy out most of that Wells Avenue but that is a seriously costly venture. If the airport is going up to 10mppa then massive amounts of land will be required for additional car-parking and ramp/terminal space. Maybe even new access roads?BRS is currently at 9mppa and thats with 27 based aircraft including 17 easyJet and 4 Ryanair aircraft... What is the ramp capable to handling at the moment?

Not sure the Cat would of been so keen with a Ryanair 737 coming towards him :p

My parents always thought that road along with avro road would be bought out one day to make room for the airport, as they said it's not nice if you have to leave the home you have worked hard on, but it's another risk being so close to an airport, they chose to sell up long ago to avoid that happening into the future. If there was a guarantee that wouldn't happen they would have probably stayed.

"Smoke & smell from her barbeques"...whilst a comedic quip it is not however the "story" that is now being featured/syndicated by all news platforms inc BBC/Sky today.

Sky lead with "The lady claims she was asked by the airport to stop complaining about the noise to a forum on it`s website".

Therein lies the media problem for Stobart as though one or two here claim there is a reasoning backstory obviously the media are choosing not to unpack the situation then to their readers.

As we know people believe everything newspapers & media disseminate.

BTW there are more neighbours complaining than the one family the media/the original story have obviously chosen to feature.

Apart from Stobart apologists perhaps the airport operator it`s self should try recover their own credentials & industry reputation by sensible engagement as the aside that "the site has been an airfield since 1914" doesn`t quite cut it.

The environmental lobby is daily becoming stronger.

The obvious thing for the airport to do is to take sound measurements from the garden which no doubt they would be reluctant to do. Luton is no different, they take noise readings 6.5km from the end of the runway. If airport employees were working in her garden they would be mandated by law to wear ear defenders if the noise levels reached 85dB. So what is the noise level there? The truth is I would think they have no idea and don't want to know either.

You amaze me. There I was thinking the media were meticulous in such matters. Although it's a cliche to say 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' there is an element of truth in that phrase and the public's awareness of SEN as a LON airport option will have increased greatly. That will remain long after any sympathy for the complainants has faded from their collective memory.

The "bad publicity" I am alluding too concerns bringing airfield ops & the airline industry into even more disrepute with lobbyists & will eventually lead to more effects detrimental to air transport.

The point I make is that it would cost nothing today at least for Stobart to show some mindfulness to their neighbours with a media savvy statement as they appear to be rather the bully & perhaps to show some respect to the industry they have chosen to be part of.

Apparently the lunchtime news carried the story .I had a relative call to ask if I had seen "how the airport is treating the poor residents at Southend Airport?"

If nothing else it's a PR disaster that could have so easily been avoided .

The question really is why nobody saw this coming and put mitigation in place before it's national news - arrogance or plain old p*ss poor planning?

I don't really see why anyone should have seen this coming.

Taxiway Charlie is where it always was and serves exactly the same purpose as previously. What did happen was that at some point after EZY established a base at SEN Taxiway Charlie suffered stability problems such that the A319s couldn't use it, but all other traffic continued to do so as far as I know. I wish I could find a date for this but cannot unfortunately. From my researches between June and August 2017 Charlie was rebuilt and reconfigured with a smoother curve and by mid November 2017 it was back in full service following installation of centreline lighting. So for the past 18 months it has been used by all air traffic, which in 2018 included 4 x A319/320 and 3 x E195 based aircraft. From April 2019 this has changed to 4 x A319/320 and 3 x B738 as far as based jet aircraft are concerned; so not very much different with just 3 x B738 being substituted for the 3 x E195 no longer SEN-based. Has this made such a difference to the noise nuisance in question? If so, why has it? These are the facts of the matter and I don't quite see why it should have been obvious to SEN management that this storm was about to break. Suggestions please.

I am somewhat surprised why a SEN spokesman hasn't said something on these lines though as it would, to some extent, nullify the wilder accusations/assumptions being made in the Press.

Sorry, but that's on a par with saying "we've been here since 1914" or "We have recorded and investigated over 430 individual complaints and found that in every case, the aircraft concerned was operating normally, legitimately and within the Airports operating framework". Pathetic - has nobody ever looked at a map and gone "Hmm, that's a bit near - maybe we should do something about it..." or gone "430 complaints - that's rather a lot..."

The fact that the stink hasn't hit till now doesn't make it any less of of a stink.

Getting a bit late now reached Ireland & now the US East Coast.

New York Post lead with the headline "Noisy smelly airport".

Ah well as stated no such thing as bad publicity.

As with the security issues one can only assume SEN management have been on their Easter break.

SWBKCB

It's not at all on a par with the statements you quoted, neither of which attempted to put the facts of the situation over the past few years into the public domain.

You're missing my point. The horse has bolted, any thing that is said now, no matter how sensible or reasonable is pointless - it is just shutting the stable door.

The door should never have been left open in the first place.