Dear Sir

Proposed Expansion of Southend Airport

In response to your letter of July 9th I have the following observations to make regarding the above. These are the reasons I am against the expansion.

1. Noise - Somebody, I don't know who, stated in the local paper that no increase in noise level would be experienced. This is arrant nonsense. Having worked for some time in close proximity to Heathrow I can vouch for the fact that a modern jet airliner generates noise on take-off that is mind numbing. With all doors and windows closed normal conversation is impossible, not to mention the vibration created. No account appears to have been taken of the massive increase in number of flights.

I was involved in contracts at nearby Brentford and Stanwell which include treble glazing and the application of external sound insulating material to the walls of houses affected. All to no avail.

2. Pollution - The same person also stated that no increase in pollution would occur. Once again drawing on my experience at Heathrow and from conversations with people who lived here when more long distance flights took place this is totally incorrect and once again the increase in the number of flights is not considered.

3. Danger - All areas surrounding the airport are densely built up. In addition to which we now have the Tesco and RBS buildings right in the flight path.

This does not apply to Stansted, Gatwick or even Heathrow which have large open tracts of land around them.

4. Alternative Airports - When the Maplin project was first mooted many years ago this was eventually discarded on various grounds, one of which was the interference with the environment of some rare sea birds, none of which I have ever seen. Other reasons were the difficulty of improving the infrastructure and transport links.

Maplin, of course was by far the best choice, having none of the problems mentioned above. This lesson can be reinforced studying Nice airport in the south of France, where the planes take off and land over the sea.

Instead the decision was made to upgrade Stansted, which was a simple grass strip when I visited it in 1955, and the Maplin project cancelled for ever.

Gatwick and Stansted are less than an hours' drive from this area and as far as I am concerned they dispense with the need for another major airport serving London.

4. Diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane - Presumably this would be via Rochford. Traffic through this town would be increased enormously at the same time depriving commuters of an alternative to the grossly overused A127, laid down in 1933 and hardly modified since. Therefore far more traffic would be generated with no plans to improve the totally inadequate road network, indeed the existing system would be downgraded by this diversion.

5. New Railway Station - Why do we need a new Railway Station when Rochford is less than a mile from the airport? Shuttle buses could be laid on to ferry passengers to and from the Terminal.

6. S.T.O.L. - Occassionally I see this type of aircraft taking off from Southend Airport. They are much quieter than the large jets and of course do not require an extended runway. These have been used with great success at the London City Airport for many years. Why not increase the use of S.T.O.L. aircraft?

7. Devaluation of surrounding properties - This will occur if the expansion takes place for the reasons given above.