The 2001 proposals
In October 2001, [25] the airport operators announced plans to expand the airport which included extending the runway by 450 m (1,500 ft ). [26] Under these proposals, it was planned to move the church out of the way, by using rollers or stilts, and to realign Eastwoodbury Lane. [25] According to the airport authorities, moving the church 100 m (300 ft ) closer to Aviation Way would enable it to build special buffer zones into the runway to meet tougher safety rules imposed by the Civil Aviation Authority. [27]
The proposed move of the church would have required the creation of a "chassis" underneath the walls of the building to turn it into a "railway carriage". A track would have been laid, supported by concrete piles, to enable the building to be moved and lowered into its final position. Protesters claimed that such a move would cost up to £2 million and would disrupt graves and burial sites under the church itself. [28]
In November, the local council backed the proposals in principle as long as various outstanding issues could be resolved [29] but protesters, supported by local M.P. David Amess and by English Heritage, called for a public inquiry. [30] At a public meeting held on 24 November, organised by Friends of the Earth, protesters were "overwhelmingly" of the view that the church should not be moved despite the council's support for the plans and the employment that would be generated by the airport expansion. [31] In December, airport director Roger Campbell claimed that the proposal to move the church was the "only choice" available. This was rejected by local councillors, who suggested that the runway could have been extended at the northern end by putting the railway into a tunnel. This proposal was in turn rejected by Mr. Campbell, on the grounds that it was not "viable". [32] The plans to move the church were rejected by English Heritage, who claimed "that no church that old has been moved before". Andrew Derrick, inspector of historic buildings at English Heritage, said: "We are very concerned about plans to move the church. It is a fine, historic and unspoiled church with some very important features." [33]
In January 2002, in the face of continuing protests, Roger Campbell claimed that the airport could face closure if its expansion plans failed [34] but, after a meeting between the church leaders and airport authorities, churchwarden Richard Huband reassured protesters that there would be no disturbance to graves should the move go ahead. [35]
On 16 January, it was announced that the church had had its listing upgraded to Grade I status. Announcing the decision, Andrew Derrick stated:
"Grade I is the right grade for St. Laurence's Church and it confirms it as a very important building. Only the two per cent most important buildings in the country are Grade I listed so now the church is in the same bracket as the most important buildings. This means that demolishing the church would be unthinkable. Any decision on moving the church will have to go through the local planning authority, but being Grade I listed will make a difference on how people view the building." [36]
On hearing the news, airport director Roger Campbell stated:
"The decision was simple – the church has to move if the airport is to survive. Thousands of jobs, which could be created if expansion plans go ahead, will be lost. It is not just a case of expansion. We have to comply with safety standards set down by the Civil Aviation Authority and they must be implemented. The future hinges on these plans." [36]
The vicar of the church, Rev. Nigel Ransom, was delighted at the news.
"I was not surprised to hear from English Heritage that the church has been upgraded to a Grade I listed building. It is a unique and historic place. For more than 1,000 years the church has stood on this site undisturbed. It is shrouded in history and is truly a magnificent example of architecture. The decision by English Heritage will certainly make it more difficult for any plans to move the church. The local community is firmly against any changes and so am I." [37]
In May 2002, the parochial church council voted to reject the proposals to move the church giving Rev. Nigel Ransom the power to block the proposals. [38] Despite this, the airport vowed to continue with their expansion plans and were in the process of preparing formal documents to submit to Southend Council in a bid to get planning permission. [39] Protesters vowed to "fight to the bitter end" [40] with local councillors being united in their opposition to the proposals. [41]
In October 2002, as it became clear that the plans to move the church in its entirety would not be supported by the local authorities, the airport made a proposal to partly demolish the existing church by lowering its walls and removing the spire, leaving the church as a monument. Under this scheme, the airport would have provided a new church and hall "in a more convenient location". Like the previous plans, this was also rejected by the church and Rev. Ransom. [42] Finally, in January 2003 the airport lodged proposals with Southend Council to completely demolish the church to allow for the expansion of the airport. A spokesman for the airport said: "The location of the church causes a breach of CAA safety regulations but airport owners are committed to moving the church intact or giving the parish an alternative building." [43]
MP David Amess continued to oppose the plans to demolish or move the church, saying "St. Laurence Church should be left alone." He also criticised the rules which prevented local councillors public announcing their views on controversial planning applications. [44] In February 2003, the local Leigh-on-Sea town council voted to support the airport's expansion plans "on the proviso that disruption to St. Laurence church was minimised by moving, not demolishing it." [45] Shortly afterwards, consultants appointed by the airport arranged a meeting with English Heritage to discuss the feasibility of moving the church. [46]
On 2 April 2003, Southend Council unanimously rejected the planning application as the airport had not given sufficient reasons to require disturbing a 1,000-year-old building and because the proposal was in breach of several of the council's planning guidelines and the district plan. [11] [47] In August 2003, the airport announced plans to lodge an appeal against the decision of the local council. [48]
In December 2003, the threat to the church began to be lifted when it was announced that permission had been granted for the installation of an instrument landing system on the land on the opposite side of Eastwoodbury Lane to the airport runway. This would be coupled with the installation of traffic lights and barriers in Eastwoodbury Lane either side of the landing zone to prevent traffic crossing under the path of aircraft as they come into land. [49] Despite this, the airport did not immediately cancel its planned appeal, much to the dismay of the local council; [50] in March the airport announced that the appeal would be withdrawn "as soon as all the safety checks had been done and final go-ahead given by the Civil Aviation Authority". This was expected to be by the end of June. [51]
The appeal was finally withdrawn in November 2004, after the Civil Aviation Authority confirmed that the safety improvements put in place were sufficient to enable the necessary safety zones to be created and permit the return of commercial flights to the airport. As a result, all plans to move or demolish the church had been withdrawn. [52]
The 2008 proposals
In January 2008, it was announced that the C.A.A. had given consent in principle to plans for a major expansion of the airport including a new terminal, control tower and railway station, together with a new hotel. The plans also involved the extension of the main runway by 300 m (1,000 ft ) over Eastwoodbury Lane. This would require the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane but would not have any serious impact on the church. [53] At the same time, it was announced that the airport operators, Regional Airports, had put the airport up for sale and were seeking a buyer who could finance the anticipated £35 million cost of the planned improvements. [53]
In December 2008, the airport was acquired by Stobart Air, a subsidiary of the Stobart transport group in a £21 million deal, with the intention of expanding the airport as a "niche air-freight destination" and attracting new passenger services. [54] The new owners said that they "would work with the local council to discuss ways of developing the airport's potential, including the possibility of an extended runway which could help meet the undoubted demand for European business and leisure travel". [2]
In June 2009, outline plans were announced to divert Eastwoodbury Lane to accommodate the proposed runway extension; under these proposals two groups of cottages at either side of the runway would be demolished together with a section of the church wall. [55]
On 13 October 2009, a formal planning application was submitted to extend the runway in a south-westerly direction, by diverting Eastwoodbury Lane, together with the provision of a new cycleway and footpath around the extended runway. The plan also required the removal of a 38 m (125 ft) section of the church wall and its replacement by a yew hedge and the provision of a turning circle outside the church. [56] The airport considered that although the proposals would have no direct impact on the church building, the additional air traffic would have a moderate to slight adverse impact on the setting of the church. This would be mitigated by the improved church entrance and the lack of passing vehicle traffic which will provide an overall enhancement to the tranquility of the area. [56] It was made clear that the application did not involve the demolition of St Laurence and All Saints Church. [57]
On 20 January 2010, Southend Council's Development Control Committee approved the runway extension plan although the recommendation was sent to the Communities Secretary John Denham for review. On 19 March 2010, John Denham approved the plans for the airport's development [58] without the need for a public inquiry. [59]
In July 2010, a small protest group against the airport expansion lodged an application for a Judicial review of the planning application; [60] this was initially dismissed in the High Court in February 2011, [61] as was a subsequent challenge. [62]
The new road diversion opened in August 2011, and Eastwoodbury Lane, in the area in-line with the runway, was stopped up on 1 September 2011, thus enabling the works required to extend the runway to be commenced. [63]