As with Scenarios 1 and 2 (a), in Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, it should be noted that the Airport would be vulnerable to both the economic and business risks outlined in previous paragraphs and the consequent decline in economic sustainability could lead to an inability to maintain its infrastructure in the face of increasing safety and security requirements. There is also a risk that the CAA will require an extension to the RESA at the north east end which would reduce the runway length even further, impacting on the Airport's MRO capability.

In the description of the New Railway Station there are references to the Strategic Rail Authority and One Great Eastern, which should be replaced by the Department for Transport and National Express East Anglia respectively.

It is LSACL's view that growth to 1 mppa by 2012 and to 2 mppa by 2030 is very uncertain in this scenario. In the study referred to in our comment on 5.2, Arup conclude that only limited spoke services on smaller aircraft would be attracted with the existing runway. These services would contribute little to the local economy and Arup's forecast is for a net increase in airport related jobs of just 330 in 2020. The present value of the economic benefits from the Airport between now and 2030 would be over £500 less than Scenario 3.

In Issue 2, Future employment role, it is suggested that 3,200 new jobs could be accommodated. This would therefore imply that the vast majority of new jobs would not be airport-related, attracted by the availability of space rather than by a demand for the particular airport location.

The Arup study used the Government's strategic forecasting model with parameters reflecting the type of aircraft likely to use the existing runway. This indicated that 2mppa would be a very optimistic forecast and would probably not be achievable.

The figures of 1500 arrivals and 1500 departures relate to an annual figure of 1 mppa, not 2 mppa.

In Issue 3 under Green Belt, the note says that the boundary would be taken around the airport boundary, but this is not shown on Figure 5.3. There would be very limited opportunities for mitigation of the adverse impacts of the airport without any significant growth.

In Issue 4, LSACL confirms that closure of the existing alignment would be necessary under this scenario. There is a greater need for improvements compared with Scenarios 1 and 2(a) but the proposals do not refer to public transport, cycling or walking.