brian_dromey

The point is that if those back gardens were inside of the airport boundary then every worker would be issued with ear defenders. As it is, some of those homes are so close to the runway that it would stop a parallel taxiway being built, which is remarkable.

I am not downplaying the problem but it is restricted to around a dozen houses at the end of Wells Avenue. The rest of that road is protected from aircraft by hangers and other buildings as well as being a considerably greater distance from taxiway C. It has become a problem because that taxiway was upgraded and brought back into general use a couple of years ago.

Ironically, it only becomes a problem when aircraft are taking off from the preferred direction required by noise abatement procedures. When Wells Avenue suffers, a large area of Westciff and Leigh-on-Sea enjoys peace and quiet.

Personally, I do not see why taxiway C could not be made unavailable for the first and last hour of the day and definitely closed at night.

Also ironically, those houses were built on part of the airport after the WW1, some well after that. So all were well aware when they were built and moved into that they were adjacent to the aerodrome, even then.

I agree with you on that idea, especially after COVID when there will be less pressure on runway occupancy times. The ASL flights will not be affected as they backtrack the runway from taxiway Delta which is on the opposite side of the runway.

Red Four

They wouldn’t have expected that the airport would extend its runway outside its then boundary so allowing larger and heavier aircraft to use SEN. Turning the discussion around should SEN have built a runway extension when it is so close to existing houses as the houses were there first. The same point applies to 737 night cargo flights when 737 passenger flights are banned.

Have to admire the thinking...two wrongs at SEN do indeed make a right!...Great stuff.

It has probably been asked & answered before so why don`t Stobart buy the properties like any decent airport (especially a London airport) would do or would be compelled to do.

A noise or earth barrier would help. It would make no difference though once the aircraft was 10ft off the ground. Didn’t the locals reject that option once?

Yes I think the people affected did reject an earth bund. Their complaints seem to be directed at the taxiway rather than the flights themselves, in the main anyway. Perhaps they thought the bund would spoil the view.

simples, remove taxi C for good and use B with a huge backtrack. Might at least appease the neighbours

i believe this is already in place. From what I understand the restrictions on taxiway Charlie are quite strict, especially at night. So back to the original point of the airport being a good neighbour, I genuinely think they are attempting to be. However, nothing can get away from the fact that when these people purchased their houses they would have looked from their gardens and seen a taxiway and surprise surprise that’s what they still see now!

People that have bought houses there over the years they knew airport was there. If they have a problem with the airport and it sounds like some do. Then why buy a house where they did or sell the house now and move away.Some people only happy when they have something to moan about. Its always people that moved there in recent years,and i expect the airport hashelped them in some way or another.

I do find rather amusing the photo of Wizz taxiing by with a plane load of visitors from Bucharest and most likely seeing a chap watering his greenhouse full of tomatoes

yeo valley

Because the airport is not the same airport it once was as SEN now has a longer runway. I haven’t read that anyone is complaining that the airport is there but how much noisier it had become.

The same argument could be applied to someone buying a house that backs onto a country lane. The road is upgraded to an A road so the traffic and noise on that road then becomes intrusive. Should those affected residents not “moan” because the lane was there first?

Your point above is valid until you remember Southend was London's third-busiest airport from the 1960s until the end of the 1970s. The primary uses of the airport changing was always a possibility. Does this stop me having sympathy with the people that live there? - of course not. Would it have stopped me buying that house in the first place? - definitely!

Regarding 737 night flights, I seem to remember reading that their noise level had to be 95 db or below, not sure if that's right. If it's above that then maybe earplugs might help people off to sleep. :rolleyes:

I'm sure that you know the history of SEN far better than you are admitting to. Your analogy is thus way off the mark.

For example in the period between the 1960s and 1990s SEN was very much noisier and the number of night flights was limited(!) to 900 per month. Passenger flights became fewer over that 30 year period but freight grew considerably. In the 1980s/90s there were often around 30 nightly freight movements and SEN was quite a hub for night freight aircraft such as the Electra, all of which used Taxiway Charlie for either departure or arrival. Was it a 'country lane' then?

The modest runway extension has allowed larger aircraft to be used since 2013 but that had no effect on the noise levels in Wells Avenue apart from when Charlie was withdrawn due to having too low a PCN. Only when Charlie was rebuilt and its bends were smoothed out did that noise nuisance return to affect those residents who, understandably had become accustomed to the quieter situation. I don't blame them for complaining; after all it is their right to do so and the airport should, in my view, make reasonable adjustments to mollify them. They did this by holding aircraft further East on Charlie until line up clearance was given, by offering to build an earth bund or other sound-reducing fencing and usage restrictions on Charlie as has been mentioned.

One of the worst affected properties is 123, Wells Avenue. This doesn't seem to have changed hands since 1995 until it was sold in February 2020 for £266,000. It would be interesting to see what price it was placed on the market but I cannot find that information.

As always you put forward a strong case. I can only remember aircraft similar in size to Embraer EMB 110 Bandeirante using Southend at night but as you point out that is not the case. Did people complain back then?

Electra, Viscount, Herald, F27, Shorts 330, Bandeirante, Trislander and Piper and Cessna twins made up the nightly mix in those days, plus British World BAC 1-11s and B707s at times. The Electra was noisy (and smoky) while the Viscount intake whine was something to behold but I don't remember much in the way of prominent noise complaints. It was the later runway extension plans that stirred up concerns in that quarter to a much greater extent.

When I worked in ATC at EGMC in the 60s the noisiest departure was the BUA DC6s GAPNP/O which used to fly newspapers to Germany at 0245, when they used 24( as it was) and flew low level at climb power over Leigh the telephone was red hot with complaints, the crews used to take bets as to how many complaints we received! and we had morning tea in the Greasy Spoon Ion the proceeds when they returned later in the morning!

The prefabs were built in prior to 1950 as I was brought up in the one on the corner of Rochford Road and Manners Way. In the early 60s the council estate opposite the old terminal was built. The houses along Eastwoodbury lane pre dated the council houses.
The airport was still known locally as Rochford airport in the 60s.