Policy T1 - Link Road from Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way

Transport links its no good just improving local infrastructure, how will the A13/A127 cope with greatly increased traffic and large container lorries. This is madness.

I feel let down already that work of some kind is in progress in the Southend Road location. It appears that a decision has been made by Rochford and Southend Councils already.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and the changes that are associated with it. This list is a few of the reasons.
Increased pollution. Increased traffic on roads already congested. Increased noise 24 hours no guarantee to limits. Reduction in house values as can already be seen just with the expansion proposals. Increase in freight flights these planes won't be quieter than newer style passenger planes.

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

There are only 2 arterial roads at the moment - A127 and A13. Both of these are severely crowded and often jammed with accidents; any additional traffic (freight or passenger) cannot possibly be contemplated

The proposed link may make the last part of the journey quicker, but does nothing to deal with the main problem - the inadequacy of the A127 to the west. This is already a major bottleneck at busy times and cannot deal with the additional passenger traffic and freight.

traffic congestion

I strongly object to the runway extension and associated developments. They will blight the lives of many residents in the area due to the increase in noise, pollution and traffic to provide very limited benefits.

The JAAP evidence base makes clear that the current transport infrastructure is unsuitable for the proposed increase in airport size. Other London airports have motorway connections.The A127 is already overloaded and a few junction improvements will not alleviate basic congestion problems. In particular, weekend congestion has become a major problem at the eastern end of the A127. Increased use by thousands of airport bound cars will further reduce local mobility and possibly affect the numbers of people willing to visit the town for other leisure related activities.

Whilst I support the runway extension an alternative to the A127 is important so a link road to Eastwoodbury Lane is imnportnat.

The local congestion is currently awfull. The local infrastructure can not cope. Smoothing the last mile of the airport users journey does nothing to compensate the locals that have to use the roads on a daily basis. I strongly object

The Essex Chambers of Commerce strongly supports the proposed Policy T1.

This will cause additional road miles for drivers in this area.

Pedestrians living on the east side of the runway wishing to go to St.Laurence church or just to go to Eastwood would now face a long walk or the cost of bus fares.
If the airport wants to extend the runway why not build an underpass for the benefit of the residents of Southend. The full cost of any alteration should be met by the airport owners.

This link road will go through an established badger set at the rear of the pair of houses on Eastwoodbury Lane

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy our right to enjoyment of life. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for all, therefore affecting our working/learning. The pollution will adversely affect our quality of life, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic on our roads.

I agree with the policy, but if the intention is to have this road constructed before severance of Eastwoodbury Lane then time is of the essence. I am concerned that the public consultation process will be the enemy of progress.

Contrary to the views of some who are concerned over increased traffic using the Southend Arterial Road, I feel that what could be utterly disastrous for the A127 is if the airport plan did not go ahead and instead thousands of houses were constructed on the site. I understand that 5000, or more homes could be erected. If every dwelling had one car and every other home had 2, then at a conservative estimate there could be an extra 7,500 private cars on the roads of Southend. Say each car was used but twice a day, then at a conservative estimate there would be over 5 million more car journeys per annum. This figure disregards service, delivery, visitors, school runs etc. To visualise 10 million more vehicular movements in the immediate area is not beyond real possibility. Anything the airport may generate pales into insignificance. This possibility cannot be understated! Those worried about vehicular traffic must vote in favour of the JAAP. Not to do so could ultimately prove absolutely disastrous for traffic levels. The very existence of the airport could strangely enough prove to be the A127's saviour. In fact,a busy regional airport could be reason enough for the Highways Agency to prioritise upgrading of the highway

I object strongly to the necessity of new roads at a time when we should be trying to reduce emissions and try to think of our environment and the impact we are all having on it. Quality of life for local residents should be paramount in this decision.

The proposed airport extension would have an adverse effect on the local town. The area is simply too built up with local housing to support the extension. It is too late to try to extend the airport without ruining the quality of life of thousands of people.

I object to the infrastructure not being able to handle the additional passenger numbers. Do not kid yourself that all passengers will use the train.

It is not only the link roads to the A127 that would need constructing, but the A127 itself is already heavily burdened with traffic in to Southend. At rush hour, weekends and holidays the road struggles to cope. It would be a great shame that day trippers who come to Leigh and Southend in their thousands will be put off because our roads simply cannot cope. How can this be good for business in the town? Not to mention a flight path over Leigh to contend with.

do not wish to have it expanded due to safety and environmental issues.

It is simplistic to assume any of the proposed work will address the congestion - where do you stop the road improvement, Rayleigh Wier, Basildon, Brentwood? The fact is that there are already bottlenecks coming into the area and with the additional passenger, workers and frieght traffic the roads will clog up back to the M25. The A127 isn't up to it now and it certainly wont be able to cope in the future.

As for transport links its no good just improving local infrastructure, how will the A13/A127 cope with greatly increased traffic and large container lorries. This is madness.

Runway too intrusive if enlarged, therefore road closure not needed.

Southend to over crowded !!!!!!!!!

Cannot agree because I object to the runway being extended for all the reasons already mentioned

Why not take Eastwoodbury Lane UNDERNEATH the runway. Costed? This avoids knock-on effects for local traffic which avoids the A127 like the plague.
We have only two routes to Southend - east via Eastwoodbury Lane and south via Kent Elms.
Close one of these and I anticipate a lot of people will transfer shopping/business west, totally altering the traffic pattern. Have you checked this either?

whilst this will mean some disruption during the construction, I am happy for the final outcome

Re: Southend Airport Consultation

I would just like to write to let you know that I disagree with the proposals for Southend airport for the following reasons:-

Having lived near to Stansted airport I know only too well the drawbacks of just how bad the noise, pollution and vibration can be and we were 6 miles from the end of the runway with aircraft at a height of 3000-4000ft. So I dread to think how it will effect the poor people that are going to be much closer. Surely there is a safety issue relating to extending the runway so close to a densely populated area? No amount of insulation/double glazing will help to block this, especially as people do not shut themselves indoors all the time.

Congestion on the roads is also a massive problem in this area, even as it is now, so a new road connecting to the A127 is just moving the problem a bit further along and not providing an answer, especially as this then will join the country's largest car park...the M25.

The government is also changing its attitude and policies towards Climate Change, Labour is even talking of capping the number of flights that will be able to take off, Conservatives are saying they will stop airport expansions. All this at a time when airlines are failing and cutting back, with passenger and freight flights dropping drastically and it seems it will not get better for a very long time. With Gatwick for sale and maybe Stansted soon, I am sure passenger airlines will prefer these options (knowing what people in the business are saying).

So will this turn into a white elephant with people's lives being destroyed just for Southend and Rochford councils to realise their mistakes at a later date (as in other cases) in their rush to pocket money.

On this basis I think past consultations should be re-examined in light of all the changes going on in the country/world. It appears that the carrot put forward of new passenger flights to the local people isn't really the true picture, Eddie Stobbarts is obviously primarily interested mainly in freight, which means very loud cargo aircraft and lorries at all times of the day and night. (Please note that a Korean 747 cargo plane crashed on take off a Stansted Airport a few years ago luckily missing homes by metres, due only to the rural nature of that area, and I see that a FEDEX cargo plane crashed today in Japan. Given the density of population in the airport area I feel very concerned.

The argument relating to night flights should be able to go to the court of human rights, because a decent nights sleep is the right of every person.

Hoping you do actually listen to these views, is there a freedom of information process to check on the transparency of all the responses to this consultation? You could print a reply in the local papers.

I object to the creation of a link road because it is a requirement of extending the existing runway to which I object.