What a great idea of the person who wants to open up the half acre of land behind his home near Stobart’s airport as an alternative visitor car park to the official site.

It’s a pity though that a local councillor has jumped on his case with the same old rhetoric of it being unsuitable and the neighbours won’t like it just when someone other than a multi-millionaire outfit has shown a bit of initiative by coming up with a plan that one day may be a boon when parking becomes a problem due to the popularity of cheap flights out of Southend.

Just look at the newly inspired council mess of parking around the streets near our hospital. What a lash up!

There is no difference to having to arrive for your flight on time than there is to attending a long-awaited hospital appointment. Miss your slot and you’ve had it.

I do hope Steve Murray gets some support from someone, especially his neighbours. Everyone needs to look to the future and too many good ideas of late have been nipped in the bud at the early planning stage.

Trevor Murdin
Flemming Crescent
Leigh

...When local residents tried to keep the connection of footpath 121 with Eastwoodbury Lane open and make use of an expensive pelican crossing across St Laurence Way by diverting the last section along the boundary of number 14 they were told this would not be possible.

The reason given was that walkers using the path may have carried backpacks with metal frames and this would interfere with the instrument landing system.

The airport’s representatives produced a drawing showing the entrance to number 14 and a large part of the plot now proposed to be a car park fell within the instrument strip of the extended runway.

Part was also in the RF sensitive area. The inspector in his report noted this.

The hearing was told that the system could be adjusted for a fixed metal object but not a movable one.

To prevent such interference a remotely controlled gate has been installed to shut off the end of the lane.

By its very nature the size and position of the vehicles in the proposed car park will constantly change.

If the airport and council permits this development then it will be quite clear the reason given for refusal to divert footpath 121 was false and the inspector misled.

B J Free
Eastwoodbury Lane
Southend