Help Keep Airfield Open

[Fresh Daily]

A friend who flew into Southend at the weekend tells me that the CAA requirement to put in safety areas at the runway ends (RESAs?) is at a critical stage. Apparently the planning application has gone in to the local council, and is now subject to the usual processes involved with a planning application. Of course there are many vociferous 'anti-airports' trying to stop this plan, not so many pro..... The council obviously has to consider responses from all sides when making it's decision.

The airport authority says that these safety areas must be implemented one way or another, in order to maintain the airport licence. If they dont get the planning go-ahead for the safety areas, then it won't be economically viable even to maintain the airport as it is at present, which would probably result in it's closure long term, and being turned into shopping mall/lorry depot or some such similar.

I, for one, have got out of more than one difficult situation by diverting into Southend when caught out by the weather. It would be an absolute disaster IMHO, for aviation to lose one of the last G.A. Airports in the London area, especially one with such a good weather record. If staying open means a few more commercial aircraft, that is a price worth paying, as far as I'm concerned.

If anyone wants to comment on the development to go ahead (and thereby keep the airport sustainable and open), or otherwise, the local authority planning application nos. to quote are:

SOS/03/0010/FUL and SOS/03/0011/LBC.

The address is:
Planning Department
Southend Borough Council
Floor 10, Civic Centre
Victoria Avenue
Southend-on-Sea
Essex
SS2 6ER


Contact Southend Council Planning (http://www.southend.gov.uk/contact.asp?content=45)

[Kolibear]

Comments before 10th Feb please.

The runway at SND has a railway at one end and open fields at the other. The cost & disruption of burying the railway is enormous, but at the SW end is a rather attractive Norman Church. This lies within the vertical restrictions of the runway. The proposal is to pick up the Church & move it. The airport will also build a community centre, carpark and donate land to increase the size of the graveyard.

[Aussie Andy]

I used the link above to submit the following - took me less than 1 minute: I urge others to do the same!Regarding SOS/03/0010/FUL and SOS/03/0011/LBC, I would like to say that I believe this proposal should go ahead because this will enable the airport to remain viable.

As a private pilot, I have often used Southend during the last year. Airports such as Southend provide valuable jobs, and consitute an important component of the UK's general aviation infrastructure.

Arguably, the airport creates less noise and disruption for local residents than the inevitable industrial estate and associated traffic that would inevitably spring up in its place, as has been seen elsewhere.

I hope this submission is helpful.

With regards,


Andy Hardy

I too have used the airfield for weather diversion (recently, late last year, on my way to Manston), as well as for planned visits.

[Andy_R]

Lets see just how many can use the link posted above to voice their support for Southend, as we did for Rochester.

Deserves another Sticky perhaps to draw full attention to it.

It took me all of 2 minutes to do, based on Aussie Andy's reply.

We all have a vested interest in supporting these applications.

REMEMBER ALL REPLIES TO BE IN BY 10TH FEBRUARY 2003

[eveepee]

Another one sent to Southend on Sea Borough Council today.

Good Luck

[jayemm]

Another one just sent.

Good luck.:)

[Timothy]

My contribution:

I am writing to support the development of Southend Airport.

We are an international software house, based in the UK but with offices all over the world. A great deal of our travel is by light aircraft, which provide us with the flexibility to travel widely and make effective use of our time. We judge the economic viability of a city by the proximity of a GA airport.

Southend is one of the two finest GA airfields in the South East, arguably in the country (the other being Biggin Hill) and the only one in the SE which is available 24 hours a day.

It is a gem of a resource, and a major contributor to flight safety.

It is much easier to drive an existing airport to closure than to open a new one, and if Southend Council fail to support the airfield they will risk reducing the economic standing and status of the area irreversibly.

[Kolibear]

I forgot to mention earlier that in addition to picking up the tag for moving the Church, the airport will also pay for any minor structural repairs that need to made to the Church.

The Church will be placed on a concrete base, which means for the first time in its history, the Church will be on a solid foundation, (physical rather than spiritual).

The Church Council could take this opportunity to install up to date heating, lighting and security at this point and to sell the film rights. I'm sure that there must be an opportunity for the documentary; 'How we moved a Church'; or the human interest; 'A David & Goliath struggle - a small airports struggle to survive in the face of nation wide opposition' (Removes tongue from cheek)

But seriously - Church stays, Airport closes.

And I haven't even mentioned 'historic Battle of Britain airfield :)

[Timothy]

If this is to be a fight between The Church (and the Southend Diocese in particular) and Southend Airport....

Where's Keef?!?! :D :D

[Rallye Driver]

Just to report another one sent, and helping to keep the thread at the top.

RD

[Charlie32]

Just a rather more long winded post to say I've sent an e-mail too. Good luck. Apparently contrary to common sense brevity of less than 20 characters is frowned upon by the powers that be!!

[panjandrum]

Sent mine off today, really hope they get the go-ahead for this much needed injection of economic activity to the area. I well remember flying out as passenger to Yugoslavia and Majorca... look forward to being able to do again from Southend..

[SlipSlider]

somehow I nearly overlooked this thread - perhaps it should be a sticky?

e-mail and hardcopy letter sent today.

Slip

[Keef]

Sorry - wossup? Someone call? Oh, hi there, WC.

Yes, this is in the Diocese of Chelmsford, and it's a delightful church that I know. I've taken services and preached there. It's OLD (even older than me), and Grade 1 listed and all the rest.

I signed my letter many months ago, in support of the airport, but with some other observations.

Sadly, someone later made a tactical error: they offered the option of demolishing the Church and building a nice new one nearby or somewhere else. Red rags and bulls isn't in it! I'm staying below the parapet till calm returns.

Churches have been moved before (as have lighthouses). Not easy, but the professionals can do it. The church would indeed be stronger after than before, and the restoration fund wouldn't be needed for a century or two.

But some twit had to offer to demolish the Church... Bit like offering to demolish Windsor Castle to safeguard Heathrow and build a nice community centre on White Waltham instead.

[BEagle]

Have e-mailed Sarfen council in support of these applications. Good luck!!

[Timothy]

keef

Maybe I'm missing the point, but what's wrong with demolishing churches? or indeed The Church?

:D :D :=

W

BTW, I don't like the new smilies, how do we vote to get the old ones back?

[Kolibear]

There is an architectural monstrosity of a Church in Eastbourne that would benefit from being demolished, but St Lawrences' is the archetypal English country Church and to suggest demolishing it is an affront.

Move it - yes, demolish it - NO WAY!

[Keef]

WC - it's largely emotional. "My granny was married here, and it's been here since 1000 AD, and I don't think those [pick your own pejorative adjectives and nouns] at the airport have any right to knock it down." I've found sometimes that opposition to "development" in the Church comes from those outside who want it to "be there" even if they never come. Sometimes they oppose actions the Church congregation itself is totally in agreement about.

Demolishing the Church as an institution - feel free. But what do you plan to put into its place to mark the rites of passage, and to provide pastoral and spiritual care to those of a less robust confidence than yourself?

And what might God think of that? (I know you don't believe in him, but he assures me he believes in you.)

[Timothy]

Demolishing the Church as an institution - feel free. But what do you plan to put into its place to mark the rites of passage, and to provide pastoral and spiritual care to those of a less robust confidence than yourself?

And what might God think of that? (I know you don't believe in him, but he assures me he believes in you.)

Leaving God out of this, I believe in BRL and I think he is going to cast a thunderbolt any sec.....

[panjandrum]

Only 18 replies out of 50,000 plus??!!! Come on pilots, you can really make a difference. Don't leave it until it is too late! Once the decision is made to close the airport, it will be too late to start protesting then!!

The local population has been bombarded with mis-leading info delivered through there letterboxes,on the plans for the airport, and there are already hundreds of anti airport letters in the process of being sent to the council...

:( So go on, put pen to paper (or whatever the computer equivalent is) and do your bit to restack the odds.

Thinks Mr Council Planner: 'How many communications against the application? OK, now how many for??'

[Red Four]

Evening Echo (http://www.business-in-essex.co.uk/essex/business/BUSINESS3.html)

Southend: `Airport survival rests on church'


Southend Airport cannot survive unless St Laurence Church is moved or demolished, according to bosses.

Other alternatives to give the required new safety measures at the airport could have cost more than £50million and led to massive property demolition, it has been revealed.

The airport has published details of the nine options it considered to meet new Civil Aviation Authority requirements on its website and in information to local residents.

It said an extension to the south-west was the only one which proved be viable.

A spokesman said: "While this requires the church to be relocated, this proposal is the least disruptive, involves the least number of houses and meets all statutory requirements."

To provide runway end safety areas within the existing runway would reduce the usable length by almost 50 per cent and most of the commercial aircraft using the airport could not land or take off, meaning it would not be commercially viable.


Published Tuesday, February 4, 2003

Brought to you by the Evening Echo

Another article in the same paper states that the council has received 600 letters anti the airport plans (or is it pro closure?).

[Keef]

I was handed a large batch of protest leaflets to distribute in our Church - against the airport and to protect St Lawrence's Church.

Either someone is spreading malicious rumour and alarming the folks in the Church, or there's more to this than meets the eye. I'd love to know the truth about what has been said, and to whom, about what.

I'm not going to repeat what I've been told, or what's in these leaflets from the "Save the Church" campaign. It can't be true, because the law doesn't allow that sort of thing (assuming I read the bit about Grade 1 listing correctly).

I'll be on the telephone again tomorrow, to find out if anyone really knows what's going on. Meantime, does anyone have any facts ?

[Keef]

Well, after some ringing around and talking to a very depressed Vicar:

The airport has applied for planning permission to move or demolish the Church. See:

http://www.southendairport.net/Airport%20Developments.htm

The Vicar has been told that a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) will be applied for so that the Church can be taken over, then moved or demolished. Nobody knows whether CPOs can be used against a Church - it's never been done yet.

Nobody knows whether or not the necessary permissions will be given to demolish a Grade 1 Listed building. It seems unlikely to me, but I have been surprised before.

Meanwhile, the whole Church community is infuriated by the proposal to use CPO and the suggestion of demolishing the building. Churches all over Essex are being asked to write in to Southend Council opposing the proposal. I was given 100 copies of the leaflet for our Church, and am assured that similar quantities were sent to most Churches in the area.

The Vicar has also been told of several other Churches around the UK that are under threat, and for which this is a "test case". So there is a very strong body of opinion opposing the proposal because of the precedent it will create.

Sounds to me like very badly handled public relations. There is no way, now, that the Church authorities will consider agreeing to moving the Church.

I assume the CAA will take a lot of persuading to retract and reapprove the exemption to the safeguarding rules that's kept the airport and the Church working together for the past 50 years. That sounds to me like the only viable way out of this mess.

Sad. I think someone somewhere with ulterior motives may be going to get what they want.

My fear is that the result will be the closing of the airport and the building of yet another industrial estate.

[Kolibear]

Its sad really, because both the Church and Airport are in a win-win situation. The Church gets refurbished, a new community centre, carpark and enlarged grave yard - free of charge, and the airport stays open and can expand its business.

If the Church stays put, then the airport closes. The airport gets sold off for industrial/housing developement. You can bet your bottom dollar that the farmland between the Airport & the A127/Tesco will be sold for development faster than Concorde. There will be no division between Southend and Rochford.

This now puts the Church in the centre of a huge development, with the attendant risk of vandalism and damage from a constant stream of HGVs. The people currently living between the airport and the farmland along Eastwoodbury Lane will be living in the middle of a building site for the next few years.

And of course, all the air traffic that currently uses Southend will have to move somewhere else too - so other airports will see more aircraft movements as the businesses relocate.

[bluskis]

I confess to knowing nothing about airport safety parameters, but I do know Southend airport reasonably well.

I question why the CAA has made a ruling which leads to the ridiculous situation where a small church has to be removed or the airport closes.

I would think in view of the safety record to date at Southend that it will be easier for the CAA to rethink their ruling as applied to Southend than expect a planning committee to rule in favour of demolishing a 1000 year old bit of history.

Perhaps the letters should go to the CAA pointing out the safety risks in Southend disappearing from the training and bad weather diversion role it plays for SE England's GA.

I suspect that to realign the runway by 5 degrees would be too expensive, but at least that is within the airport's remit, and the costs of all the building work they propose can't be minimal.

[G SXTY]

Another e-mail sent to the council.

At the risk of stating the obvious, surely the airport management should be shouting it from the rooftops that they want to move the church & improve its facilities - rather than demolish it. Or am I missing something?:confused:

[Keef]

G SXTY - I think you're right. But that's not what they've done. Self-inflicted wound, I fear.

[Billy The Squid]

I'm a bit sad I found this thread too late to post my comments to Southend Council but I wanted to stress my wholehearted support for the development of Southend.
The airport is a wasted resource. Why spend millions compulsory purchasing and developing around LHR/LGW/STN when you can free up valuable slots and parking space by shifting some of the short haul sectors to a ready made regional airport??.

[Red Four]

BBC Look East reporting that Southend Council have rejected the Airport's planning application. :( :* :}
Just under 4,300 letters received, of which less than 5% (around 200) were for the airport, the rest against.

So is it Hello to Shopping Mall, Refuge for asylum seekers or 3 lane bypass, or all three? Time will tell....

[Kolibear]

At all the public meetings, the reverse was true, most people were in favour of moving the Church to keep and improve the airport.

According to the info leaflet that I received from the airport recently, 'demolish' is plannerspeak for 'renovate/refurbish/move/etc'

Next stop - Appeal Courts, I suspect.

[Prof Denzil Dexter]

As someone who learnt to fly at Southend when you could cycle across the runway quite legally, I believe the best thing that could
happen to the airport is:

1) Demolish the 'terminal building' and replace with purpose built 'light aviation pavilion', complete with decking.

2) Move the tower to the North West side of the airport.

3) Re-open runway 15/33 and move the 707 wrecks from the NW end.

4) Leave well alone and let GA re-establish itself there, much to the joy of the local residents.

Other options include ploughing up the hard runways, and reseeding the airfield a la Swanton Morley (as it was)....

Thems me views

[Kolibear]

This must be some sort of record for re-opening an old thread but it is relevant to include the history.

Last night, I caught brief item on the local South-East news regarding Southend Airport and the proposal to move a nearby Church.

Essentially, the problem is that the CAA needs larger run-off areas around the runways and the Church lies within these area. Without the run-off area, the airport becomes unlicensed and would probably close due to lack of business.

The article seemed to imply that both sides of the dispute had come out successfully, the Church would remain and the airport would remain open.

Does anyone have any more in depth information about this??

[FullyFlapped]

The wife tells me that Sarfend is where everyone from the Eastenders soap appears to spend half their time. Therefore it should obviously be given the full carpet-bombing treatment just in case ...

Despite the above, I've contacted the planning gods and given them my tuppence in support as well !

FF :ok:

[0-8]

Kolibear,

I saw the same programme. As I remember, they said that Southend Airport had withdrawn their application as they had found an “alternate solution”.

I’ve had a look around the BBC’s site and all I can find is this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3336871.stm

[trevs99uk]

The airport has recently had a change at the 06 end.
The ILS and equipment is now located about 500 feet across
the fields with the roadway between the airfiled and the equipment.
The bank and fence have gone and now in its place is a plastic looking fence. The filed beyond ahving been flattened out should and aircraft overrun. Also the light to stop car crossing has now had barriers added as well.

The ils angle has therefore changed and there is new approach
procedures. The touchdown spot on 24 and the PAPIs have also been changed.

All this work was signed of by the CAA last week.


trevor

[Courtman]

The Southend Airport (http://www.southendairport.net) website has some interesting pics of plans for a new terminal, parking areas and railway station and when I dropped in (sort of) to Southend at the weekend someone told me that the station will be built in a couple of years ... now what traffic that will bring is open to debate...

[FullyFlapped]

I've had a reply from Southend Council to the email I sent them, as follows :-

"Thank you for your e-mail of the 2nd November 2004 - I can confirm that both the appeals on the Airport were withdrawn on the 12th November 2004.


I hope this is of assistance to you


Jill Sealey"

FF :ok: