November 22nd, 2009 |
Big Night For The Town Of Rochford - Airport Schemes Go Through, Colonade Refused.
It was a big night last Thursday in the District Council Chamber - and a big night in the council car park as well, as it was used as an overflow area for the people who couldn’t get seats or standing room inside.. (Loudspeakers broadcast the proceedings to anyone outside.) The police were present, but weren’t needed.
Here’s a brief summary of the night’s proceedings:
Extension of the airport runway: Passed overwhelmingly, with a few abstentions. Cllr Keith Gordon said that residents around the Anne Boleyn would welcome a reduction in night flights. Cllr Terry Cutmore said that the principle of expanding the airport was agreed about 12 years ago. Hawkwell Councillor John Mason also spoke, and seemed the only person comcerned about any traffic implications.
New Air Traffic Control Tower: Noted. It seems that the airport doesn’t need planning permission to build an air traffic control tower, it can do so wherever it likes within the airport boundary. Cllr Heather Glynn was pretty furious that they were building it so close to houses, calling it a ‘monstrosity’. Cllr Terry Cutmore saw no objections.
Up to 326 houses, Stambridge Road , Rochford. Refused unanimously. This was what the public had come for. There was a very good speeche from the Stambridge Parish Clerk opposing it, another good one from a member of the public, decent speeches from two of the ward councillors, plus a bit of an unnecessary party political speech from one of the senior Conservatives.
The scheme was recommended for refusal by the officers, and was refused by the councillors unanimously- Conservatives, Lib Dems and John Mason.
And this is where the irony kicks in if you are a Rawreth resident. There were special issues for this site in terms of nearby wildlife and the airport flightpath. But much of the argument was on the same grounds as for the land North of London Road - a green belt site, traffic, lost of community identity, a site that merges a town with an adjoining small parish. The speech from the Stambridge Parish Clerk could be read by the Rawreth Parish Clerk with almost no changes! Stambridge is in even in the fourth tier of settlements, like Rawreth. The BIG difference is that the council hasn’t included this as a possible site in it’s Local Development Framework (and quite rightly, too) but the Conservative Group has made sure it is including Rawreth, not with 326 , but with 770.
What happens next? The developers Colonade will probably go to appeal and argue that as the Local Development Framework isn’t cut and dried yet, they should still get their way. We hope they don’t.
November 23rd, 2009 at 10:11
I thought that the cut in night flights was actually a cap based on a percentage of the projected number of daily flights, and as this number is due to rise significantly with the airport development, the actual number of night flights will remain roughly the same as today.
My understanding is there will be no reduction of total night flights.
November 23rd, 2009 at 02:11
I was pleased to read that the planning committee based a major part of their rejection of this application on the grounds of “a green belt site, traffic, loss of community identity, a site that merges a town with an adjoining small parish”.
I sincerely hope that the same committee, if they are still in post, remember this and make the same arguments for rejection when it comes to developing the ‘North of London Road, Rawreth’ site. Should they forget, I will remind them!
On the other hand, I do not understand how the airport flightpath will have any effect on future residents who buy the houses under the flight path, whether on greenbelt or brownfield land. Purchasers will know the problems of aircraft noise in the area and should have enough sense not to buy if it bothers them. If they choose to make this decision, what right would they have to complain after becoming a resident.
With the large influx of workers needed to supply the occupational posts at the airport, perhaps these will be the new occupants of the dwellings. If so they should have no complaints, as these would be against their own employers.
Also, the close proximity of Rochford and Stambridge to the airport should result in less use of the car for commuting and encourage more people to walk or cycle to work.
I think the airport flightpath argument is a Red Herring in this instance and should be ignored.
November 23rd, 2009 at 03:11
Sorry for not being clearer here Greenbelt, it wasn’t about noise it was about the areas being unsafe during takeoffs and landings.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:11
Admin, This just highlights a case for dual standards again. By extending the airport runway to the south west and closer to the Somerset Estate, south of the A127, this creates exactly the same safety problem in respect of takeoffs and landings. How can it be safe in the busier south west take off direction, into the prevailing winds, and not in the lesser used north east direction? Planning logic baffles me, or is it the planners and most committee members who are totally bewildered?