Object
London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document
Representation ID: 32650
Received: 24/04/2013
Respondent: Miss M A Townsend
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Submission Draft recognises that some environmental impacts will inevitably result from more activity from the airport and new business parks that 'must be managed considerably and appropriately', the DPD continues 'It is accepted that the environmental impacts (noise and air quality, in particular) will need to be carefully monitored as a result of the increased number of aircraft and vehicle movements in the area.' The solution is apparently '...proposing detailed controls on the operation of the airport to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents.'
It is ludicrous and reckless of the Councils to agree such a solution 0 the conflicting roles of monitoring AND controlling cannot be delegated to the airport operator itself. This decision is even more absurd when you read later in this document (Section 4 - Airport Policies (Page 36)) that '...airport operator is preparing several policy documents to set out how the airport will function both in terms of measuring environmental impacts, but following a sustainable operating strategy...' then listing 9 documents to be included. It is totally unacceptable to submit this DPD without prior scrutiny of these 'key' policy documents (particularly those involving air quality and carbon and environment management plans) and it is totally irresponsible for the Councils to take such vital far reaching decisions without verifying this key content which surely should have been finalised and in the possession of the Councils for scrutiny/agreement prior to their originally approving the airport's present operations.
Furthermore, the Councils' responsibility to residents as a duty of care should be to appoint independent specialists responsible for recording, monitoring and controlling all data - particularly the key areas of noise, air quality, carbon and environmental - and for the total costs incurred to be levied on the airport operator. It is not acceptable in a democratic legal system that the airport operator monitors itself - this is a complete conflict of interest. Where is the control? In any other sphere of control and checking there is an independent commission or 'office of regulator'. In addition, to allay suspicion of any abuse, details of the precise location of monitoring equipment and timing arrangements need to be established and publicised - local residents are affected and have a very strong interest in all the pollution hazards being imposed on them. Having recently been subjected to extremely high levels of strong aviation fuel smells in my back garden in Eastwoodbury Lane (particularly bad between 1600 and 1700 hours on 3 consecutive days w/e Sunday 24 March and at 1700 hours on Tuesday 9 April) what is the point of restricting people smoking in the Central Library etc., if you can't even breathe safely in your own garden? Despite the various vague (seemingly hollow) references to the importance of environmental impact throughout this DPD, and that this '...must not be at the expense of a worsening of the environment and quality of life for those living in the area (Page 33), no evidence has been included of the Councils' plans to offset the huge increase in carbon balance from the airport. This results in the DPD being unbalanced and extremely biased in favour of the airport operator. It is essential that evidence based studies are specified identifying where the Councils are reducing carbon emissions to help tackle climate change - this is important information that we are entitled to know as there are dangerous health hazards from the fumes and pollution created by planes whilst using the aprons, taxiways and runways all of which are far too close to existing residents, together with the misery of noise nuisance caused on take off and landing.
This DPD is not balanced as it fails to understand and thoroughly address the overall implications of pollution which affect a significant percentage of the local population and it will be irresponsible, improper and unlawful of the Councils to proceed until environmental and pollution concerns have been properly addressed.
3. Balancing development with environmental enhancement
The Submission Draft recognises that some environmental impacts will inevitably result from more activity from the airport and new business parks that 'must be managed considerably and appropriately', the DPD continues 'It is accepted that the environmental impacts (noise and air quality, in particular) will need to be carefully monitored as a result of the increased number of aircraft and vehicle movements in the area.' The solution is apparently '...proposing detailed controls on the operation of the airport to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents.'
It is ludicrous and reckless of the Councils to agree such a solution 0 the conflicting roles of monitoring AND controlling cannot be delegated to the airport operator itself. This decision is even more absurd when you read later in this document (Section 4 - Airport Policies (Page 36)) that '...airport operator is preparing several policy documents to set out how the airport will function both in terms of measuring environmental impacts, but following a sustainable operating strategy...' then listing 9 documents to be included. It is totally unacceptable to submit this DPD without prior scrutiny of these 'key' policy documents (particularly those involving air quality and carbon and environment management plans) and it is totally irresponsible for the Councils to take such vital far reaching decisions without verifying this key content which surely should have been finalised and in the possession of the Councils for scrutiny/agreement prior to their originally approving the airport's present operations.
Furthermore, the Councils' responsibility to residents as a duty of care should be to appoint independent specialists responsible for recording, monitoring and controlling all data - particularly the key areas of noise, air quality, carbon and environmental - and for the total costs incurred to be levied on the airport operator. It is not acceptable in a democratic legal system that the airport operator monitors itself - this is a complete conflict of interest. Where is the control? In any other sphere of control and checking there is an independent commission or 'office of regulator'. In addition, to allay suspicion of any abuse, details of the precise location of monitoring equipment and timing arrangements need to be established and publicised - local residents are affected and have a very strong interest in all the pollution hazards being imposed on them. Having recently been subjected to extremely high levels of strong aviation fuel smells in my back garden in Eastwoodbury Lane (particularly bad between 1600 and 1700 hours on 3 consecutive days w/e Sunday 24 March and at 1700 hours on Tuesday 9 April) what is the point of restricting people smoking in the Central Library etc., if you can't even breathe safely in your own garden? Despite the various vague (seemingly hollow) references to the importance of environmental impact throughout this DPD, and that this '...must not be at the expense of a worsening of the environment and quality of life for those living in the area (Page 33), no evidence has been included of the Councils' plans to offset the huge increase in carbon balance from the airport. This results in the DPD being unbalanced and extremely biased in favour of the airport operator. It is essential that evidence based studies are specified identifying where the Councils are reducing carbon emissions to help tackle climate change - this is important information that we are entitled to know as there are dangerous health hazards from the fumes and pollution created by planes whilst using the aprons, taxiways and runways all of which are far too close to existing residents, together with the misery of noise nuisance caused on take off and landing.
This DPD is not balanced as it fails to understand and thoroughly address the overall implications of pollution which affect a significant percentage of the local population and it will be irresponsible, improper and unlawful of the Councils to proceed until environmental and pollution concerns have been properly addressed.