Object

London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document

Representation ID: 32588

Received: 26/04/2013

Respondent: gillian moore

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The policy to expand the airport is an example of unsound, unsustainable, irresponsible development. The JAAP supports the precise opposite of "evidence based policy". It is bad for people, climate, economy and biodiversity. The local population oppose it and are suffering real misery as a result of the actions of the two councils.

Full text:

Southend Airport has more housing in its immediate vicinity than any other regional airport in the UK. It is therefore grossly misleading for the JAAP document to suggest that the local councils have done anything to limit or reduce the number of people who suffer from aircraft noise. The councils have failed in their duty of care to the local population by doing everything in their power to increase flights and noise.
The JAAP does not take into account the adverse impacts on communities on the south side of the River Thames especially the Hoo Peninsula. The JAAP does not take into account the adverse impacts on amenity caused by noise and loss of visual amenity in this tranquil area. Residents have already complained to Southend Airport about noisy low flying aircraft over the village of Cliffe Rochester Kent. With the arrival of Easyjet to Southend Airport with their low flying and incredibly noisy aircraft it is already an absolute nightmare.
The disgraceful decision to allow night flights poses a serious threat to the health of the people who now have to suffer absolute misery caused by the irresponsible and callous expansion of the airport. I have major concerns about Southend Airport operating night flights.
The document is unsound, it is based upon a series of false assumptions, including the claim that it will create jobs and that the airport is in any way "sustainable". Operations at Southend Airport are taking money out of the UK economy by encouraging ever larger numbers of people to take holidays abroad.
The first year of operations at the airport indicate that around 500 jobs have been created, of which around half were transferred from Stanstead. However an analysis provided by SEEFoE suggests that the number of tourists who travelled abroad exported around £300 million from the UK economy, which is equivalent to over 10,000 jobs lost to the Essex/London economy.
The airport has stripped £millions out of the local economy by devaluing property near the airport and flight path.
The last JAAP process showed that around 80% of respondents did not want the high growth scenario for airport expansion and an opinion poll last year showed that 61% of local people opposed expansion.
It is impossible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by flying ever more aircraft. I am very concerned that any growth in air travel would result in the failure of Government to meet its target to cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. The JAAP does not appear to take into account the adverse impacts of CO2 emissions from aviation, not just locally but nationally and internationally. Aviation is the fastest growing sector in terms of UK emissions.
I object to the proposed expansion plans due to the contribution it will make to climate change and the impacts this will have on biodiversity.
Any expansion at airports in the Thames Gateway will make it difficult, probably impossible for the Thames Gateway to achieve its emissions targets.