Southend Judicial Review applicant wins right to oral hearing
Review has been filed with the High Court.
place later this year. We understand that it is usual for such a hearing for take
place within two months.
challenged by the lawyers pursuing the case on behalf of one of SAEN’s members.
He said: “We are now in the position that the initial refusal is effectively meaningless.
The decision will now be taken by the judge presiding over the Oral Hearing. We
look forward to confirmation of the date of that hearing.
and not to start work on the link road between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way,
at least until the outcome of this hearing is known.”
and could easily be overturned by the Judicial Review.
commence as if the Judicial Review had already been decided, and so this closure
differences’ with the Airport, he really should be utterly ashamed of himself.
Residents of his ward, Blenheim Park, will be some of the worst-affected by the
airport’s expansion and he is doing nothing to protect their interests. It’s as
if he’s joined the Tories.”
Notes to Editors “Stop Airport Extension Now” (SAEN) was formed to campaign against the runway
extension at Southend Airport. The group is not opposed to the Airport itself,
which has co-existed with the residents of Southend for many years. SAEN is against
the runway extension, which would lead to a massive increase in flights and destroy
the lives of the people living, working or going to school anywhere near the flightpath.
Contact Denis Walker, Press Officer SAEN (Stop Airport Extension Now) – email@example.com Visit the SAEN website – http://saen.org.uk/ High Court initial refusal of legal challenge to Southend Airport plan 3.2.2011 (Southend Echo)
plans was dismissed by a High Court judge this week, it was confirmed today.
had received confirmation from the court about the judge’s decision.
modern aircraft, are ready for take-off, bar a council agreement on the airport
Review for Southend Airport has been refused – great news! “
one of our members. The situation is not as straight-forward as this makes it
sound and the media and airport supporters are under the impression that it’s
all over for us.
solicitors, SAEN have published a comprehensive explanation on the SAEN website
and a recording of that is available at:
What the court’s decision means – by SAEN
up today’s announcement that the High Court has refused a SAEN member permission
to proceed with a Judicial Review of the decision to approve planning permission
on the runway extension at Southend Airport. However, this is by no means the
end of our campaign or even the chances of getting a Judicial Review.
the Judicial Review applicant has seven days to take, is to make a request for
an Oral Hearing. This would be a 20-minute hearing within about two months at
which the applicant’s Barrister would put the case before a different judge from
the one that took today’s decision. It’s entirely possible that this judge would
reach a different conclusion. If they didn’t, the option of appealing against
the decision would still be open to the applicant.
lengthy process and that the current refusal is by no means final.
the airport many millions of pounds over the last decade and yet we’ve learned
this week that the Council has
to show for the millions handed to the airport are the 60 or so job vacancies
advertised recently by Stobart. We must not forget that there have been about
300 redundancies since they took over the airport.
airport if the runway extension goes ahead, but they are virtually meaningless.
The airport has permission for 915 night flights a month and uses a tiny fraction
of them. The proposed cut to 120 a month won’t affect them at all, while the loophole
allowing unlimited Quota Count exempt planes to fly at night means that residents
have no assurance of a quiet night’s sleep and will be guaranteed frequent noisy
interruptions during the day by flights to Ireland (
nearly a mile to journeys between Rochford and Eastwood and make it impossible
for people living east of the runway to take the short walk to St Laurence Church
as the runway would get in the way. Add to this the pollution and increase in
traffic congestion the airport would cause and it’s hard to see why anyone would
support the proposal.
are entirely unable to provide any facts to back the assertion up. We’ve learned
this week that it seems Stobart even want to take away business from local taxi
drivers by running their own taxi service.
is now about $100 a barrel – the highest it’s been since the spike that in 2007
kick-started the recession. Meanwhile big business and western governments have
been busily preventing any progress being made at the climate change negotiations
first in Copenhagen and more recently in Cancún.
not be a big contributor to these problems, the fact remains that it would contribute to making them worse. Given the undeniable fact that we have a finite
amount of oil remaining, one has to ask: to what better use could the oil used
to power these planes be put? If it was used for agriculture, how many people
would it feed?