Paragraph 3,1 Policy The future development and role of London Southend Airport
The conclusion drawn in the Airport Masterplan 2005 that the railway station was fundamental to increasing the attractiveness of the Airport was not based on any evidence merely on accepted wisdom. The evidence provided by the failure of the shuttle bus from Rochford station was ignored and the station now built is little used. Potential passengers from East London can travel by rail to Stanstead for a greater choice of destination in less time than to Southend. Improvements to the rail link to Stanstead now being carried out and planned for the future will further improve the attractiveness of Stanstead that currently operates at little more than 2/3 capacity.
Aviation moves faster than council decision making. Further more the councils take their aviation advice from the Airport and this is tainted by self-interest. The need to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases resulted in the adoption in 2006 by the committee on aircraft emissions of the Chicago Convention of the specification for Chapter 4 aircraft in annex 16 of Chapter 30. Aircraft such as the Airbus A320neo (new engine option) or the Boeing 737 max series are significantly (up to 15%) more fuel efficient, but require longer runways. As a result a runway 1,799 metres in length will no longer be long enough to accommodate future narrow bodied airliners of the type and size favoured by airlines such as easyJet. The Airbus A319ceo (current engine option) now flying from the Airport and the Embraer 195, which has yet to do so, are Chapter 3 aircraft. An Embraer 195 at full fuel and payload requires a runway 2,179 metres long. Economics and EU policy will force the aggressive adoption of Chapter 4 aircraft to the detriment of London Southend Airport.
Virtually all of the North Side extension for Maintenance Repair and Overhaul is in floodzone level 2 & 3. This is contrary to government policy for development in the flood plane. In addition who would install expensive equipment or get insurance for such in an area like that? Why propose its development before studies of flooding risk have been carried out? Such a proposal is seriously flawed and irrational. Not taking into account the real circumstances, history and likely future developments render this section of the Draft unbalanced. To be lawful the Submission Draft must be balanced.