Help Keep Airfield Open
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evening Echo
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?).
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?).
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Witnesham, Suffolk
Age: 80
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/Airpo...velopments.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.
The airport has applied for planning permission to move or demolish the Church. See:
http://www.southendairport.net/Airpo...velopments.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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Supercharged PPRuNer
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Doon the watter, a million miles from the sandpit.
Posts: 1,183
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: A small village on Mars just outside the capital city, Wooble.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??.
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??.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: North Uist, Outer Hebrides
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: SX in SX in UK
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Despite the above, I've contacted the planning gods and given them my tuppence in support as well !
FF
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: essex
Age: 68
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Southend Airport 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...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend Airport
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
"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
