Paragraph 2.1 Policy Vision
The declared policy of the UK government the EU and the ICAO is to separate residential areas from air traffic. The development of London Southend Airport is in direct contravention of this policy.
There are more residential properties around this airport than any other in the UK. Statements such as "ensuring a good quality of life for its residents and workers" and "the quality of life for all its citizens" conflict directly with the declared aim of massively increasing the number of air movements and passengers passing through London Southend Airport as outlined in this section. The increased levels of noise, air, water and light pollution that this traffic both air and road will generate will impoverish the quality of life of thousands. Further the statement "and with only a fraction of the residential noise impact of other airports" is factually incorrect. To reach the estuary aircraft taking off on the 24 runway must first pass over Leigh and its population. In the same way aircraft landing on the 06 runway from the estuary must equally do so. Taking off on the 06 runway and landing on the 24 runway aircraft pass directly over residential housing within a few hundred metres of the runway end.
The reasons for the development of the DP World container port is to enable the next generation of new super large container ships now coming into service to be accommodated. These are too large and their draft requirements too great to enable them reach Tilbury. These ships because of increasing fuel costs will come to dominate the container trade and cause Tilbury to close as a container port. Jobs gained at DP World will lead to jobs being lost at Tilbury. Increased traffic at the new port will contribute to the levels of air pollution to which the councils seem to be determined to add by the expansion of London Southend Airport.
The government is currently prosecuted in the High Court for permitting levels of air pollution in the London area to exceed those allowed by EU legislation and failing over the years to take appropriate action to reduce them. Relying on the Airport to monitor its own air pollution levels is unacceptable it is too open to abuse. It is the equivalent of permitting a drunken driver to administer his or her own breath test. The failure of both councils to make provision for the installation of pollution measuring equipment around the Airport is a blatant failure of duty of care. Just because current legislation does not make such provision mandatory is no reason for a caring council to not do it. A prevailing wind brings in pollution from London and nine air routes pass directly over both towns many both visible and audible. These distribute pollution from above and in the future a busy container port close by is set to increase further. To this toxic mix London Southend Airport plans to increase its contribution. The apparent determination to turn Southend and Rochford into a pollution black spot makes a mockery of statements such as "a great place to live, do business and visit" or "make Rochford the place of choice in the county to live, work and visit".
If the authors of this document care to refer to a map of the UK they will discover that Ebbsfleet is in Kent the other side of the estuary and is in no way connected with the JAAP area. It is worth noting at this point that the owners of Manston Airport after year trying to sell it are now proposing closure and change of use of the site to one more profitable and useful. This development exposes the false claims of a shortage of runways in the Southeast. As Kent councillors once considered Manston Airport or Kent International Airport as they ostentatiously renamed it would become a British Airways hub it just proves how wrong councillors with delusions of grandeur can be. Failure to address the concerns identified above render this section of the draft unbalanced. To be lawful the Submission Draft must be balanced.