‘SAEN’ lodge appeal against airport decision

‘SAEN’ have appealed for a verbal hearing. During which they will get a short time to argue their case for a judicial review of the airport extension decision. Last week’s judgement was unequivocal, you can read it here- JR Order 03 02 11

We can now look forward to further months of delay and mounting legal costs to be borne by the tax payer and in the meantime Southend and Rochfords’ economic revival will be handicapped and the job prospects of many put on hold by the actions of a few.

Say yes to Southend airport expansion

Advertisements

9 responses to “‘SAEN’ lodge appeal against airport decision

  1. If reports that Saudi Arabia has exaggerated oil reserves by 40% are anywhere near true then there isn’t a great deal of future in the aviation industry! Prices will rise significantly and people will get poorer. See: –

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/saudi-oil-reserves-overstated-wikileaks

    Southend council should have pursued sustainable projects for job creation in the area; instead it relentlessly pursues a high pollution, high energy consumption business model which condemns us to a bleak future.

  2. Mr Fuller
    The future of aviation and its viability as a business is up to the airport operators, national government etc to consider, but if they wish to operate an airport in Rochford then I would prefer the model with a longer runway than the existing one over which we have virtually no controls.
    You clearly care a great deal about the future of our planet and how we use its resources but I fail to comprehend why you oppose the runway extension, with it we will have more sustainable, cleaner planes travelling less distance. In this instance, whilst you may oppose all aviation, the loss of the extension would actually be more detrimental than having it.
    As for promoting more sustainability and related jobs I do, quite strenuosly and I probably put more effort into that, besides ward issues, than anything else! Anna

  3. If SAEN are so convinced that they have the support of ‘the majority’ as they keep claiming, and that they will be successful. Then why are they not in a position to financially back the Application and any subsequent Review themselves?
    The fact is that permission has been legally granted, ratified by the Government and now upheld by a Judge. It makes this application a total waste of tax payers money and a mockery of the Legal Aid provision in this country.

    If Mr Fuller and Denis Walker are that convinced that the cost of fuel will prevent the Airports success in the future. What are they concerned about?
    Mr Fuller’s above comments which are echoed by Denis Walker, contradict their statement about SAEN not being opposed to the Airport itself.

  4. Dear Ms Wait, you have a lot to lean (as do SBC) about judicial processes. If the documentation review of the objector’s case by a junior high court judge was “unequivocal” it would be “the final judgement”.. It is not, and there by hangs your dilemma and the reason for your unnecessary post . By they way SBC’s use of public funds in defending what could amount to their unlawful decision will be accountable. Will you stand up and be counted Ms Wait if SBC loses, I wonder what spin you would apply to that situation?

  5. I can sit back no longer and not comment at the inane posts of the anti airport people! Mr Archell in your posts you write in such a way that seems to claim some greater knowledge than Miss Waite. ‘Unequivocal’ is defined as : admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding. In the reply from the judge he wrote: ‘none of the claimants grounds are argueable’. Correct me if i am wrong but to me that sounds pretty unequivocal! In your other point you raise you say quite ironically that SBC are using public funds to defend their decision. What funds do you expect the council to use when someone challenges them in court, charitable funds? By the nature of applying for the JR SAEN knew public funds would be used to defend it, oh yes and hang around public funds would also be used to pay for SAEN to have a winge, as if the council, Mr Denham and a judge isnt enough SAEN fancy spending more tax payers money to have another go! But why not their not bothered about the waste of public money…oh but they are when it suits them! Their whole arguement is full of contradictions and inacuracy which makes me so cross! Carry on the good work SBC, yes people will always knock and have a go at you but you but no council will ever be popular, people enjoy moaning! When there is a mass protest on the streets then take notice, while there are 10 or 20 over 60’s outside the civic centre with a banner then keep up the good work!

  6. Anna – your comments above have really shocked me! This is a simple matter of mathematics. If you increase flights by 100%, you will double CO2 emissions. If you then introduce more fuel efficient aircraft and these use 25% less fuel you have still increased CO2 emissions. Surely you understand the basic mathematic principle here?! Perhaps you should look at Southampton Airport and note the huge increase in CO2 emissions there following expansion.

    I am a member of SAEN but hold no position on the committee. I do not speak for SAEN, nor Denis Walker! My view is that everyone of us has an overiding responsibility – to work increadibly hard to prevent the mass loss of life which climate change will cause. 10 years ago the UN warned us that billions of people would face hunger and starvation unless we reduced greenhouse gas emissions: –

    http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=225&ArticleID=2952&l=en&t=long

    My job is to stop you and politicians like you from inflicting that holocaust upon the worlds poorest people. I want CO2 emissions to reduce from the aviation sector and I want those reductions to start now. Those who support the expansion of aviation are, in my view, with ignorant or evil. But I am sure most Conservative councillors understand what is at stake and are not ignorant of the facts. The majority are indeed gulity of a great evil.

    Some people try to justify an increase in CO2 emissions by claiming that aviation expansion will create jobs. I don’t agree that mass loss of life is a price worth paying for more jobs. But, in fact, aviation causes a net loss of jobs to the UK economy. The UK has a balance of trade aviation deficit – more people fly abroad, spending their money abroad, than fly here. I want to see fewer people fly abroad and see more people spend their money on holidays within the UK. That will create far more jobs in the UK.

    I also believe that councillors have a responsibility to support sustainable development. Southend is deeply wedded to the pursuit of the least sustainable modes of development. Indeed it is a model in the pursuit of unsustainable development! The best thing I can say about the town is that it serves as an example of how not to pursue economic development! Please seek a presentation from the committee on Peak Oil and get them to explain to the council what will happen to the price of oil and what the implications will be for the town’s development. You will then see that you need to pursue policies which encourage people to live low energy consumption lifestyles.

  7. good to see another non alarmist reply from a SAEN member. May i suggest you write a letter instead of using a computer…it uses energy you know, every little helps!

  8. southend mechanic

    Mr Fuller
    As you seem to follow this closely maybe you will answer a question regaurding Denis and Peter Walker. Over a year ago Denis admitted to me and several others that he drives BUT he does not own a car as he uses the family car (a small imported hyundia) for trips in which train and buses are no possible. I notice from Denis and his regular rants that he is against any planning or use of land which does not meet strict critira. So how as a person who paid Southend council a small fortune to have a dropped kerb put in do you think i feel about this 2 faced person when i drive past his house and see the family car parked on their front and see that the car is being moved regularly but no dropped kerb is in place and that it is parked so they reverse into the side road on the very corner (which has a stop line due to the dangerous kind of junction it is) please can you communicate this to him as if this was anyone else he, his father ,and members of seefoe would persist by launching a public witch hunt. Planning law is there for a reason and this has been pointed out to him many times yet he still continues. maybe the council should review this and put in a bollard to prevent the use of this peice of pavement being used in this way as it is unsuitable for a dropped kerb to be added.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s