Object
New Local Plan: Spatial Options Document 2021
Representation ID: 42094
Received: 03/09/2021
Respondent: Mr J Alcock
Objection To Housing Development on Site CFS12 4
(Land east of Little Stambridge Hall Lane, Rochford)
Implicit in the function of local authorities is a responsibility to safeguard the quality of life, physical health, mental health and safety of all residents. Rochford District Council is no exception to this.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built, to the North-East of the airport runway threshold it would, in my opinion, affect this responsibility.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built this would also materially change the basis of the Section 106 agreement which it reached with Southend Council and London Southend Airport. Part of this agreement depends upon the existence of fewer residents to
the North East of the runway.
Site CFS124 is about 1 mile from the threshold of the main runway of London Southend Airport.
All heavy jet-engined aircraft pass over the site when they take off or land. Executive jets, medium-sized turbo prop planes, small piston-engined planes and helicopters frequently pass over.
As they pass over the site after taking off, jet passenger and cargo aircraft are still climbing after take-off at very high thrust levels in order to gain height as rapidly as
possible. They create a very high volume of noise. Anyone who is walking along Little Stambridge Hall Lane by the side of this site has their voice drowned out and their ears bombarded with noise.
Engines are at high thrust and project sound downwards and to either side. Heavier aircraft have not yet reached the 1500 feet which they are required to attain before they can reduce power and change course.
The heavy jets which are coming in over the site are on their very final approach to the airport. They are at about 400 feet as they pass over. Their engines generate a high volume of noise. The sound builds up from quite a distance before they pass over the site.
If permission were to be granted for housing development all those who lived in the new residential area would be subjected to engine noise from heavy jets, executive jets, piston engined small aircraft, turbo-prop aircraft and helicopters flying right overhead or almost
right overhead. Piston engined smaller aircraft have a particularly loud, harsh, resonating and unpleasant impact on the ears.
The initial appraisal of this site on the Council website states that the area of land is 2.30 hectares. The assessment also states that the site is available for housing with a potential capacity of 63 houses. This gives a figure of 27.4 dwellings per hectare. Each housing site would therefore have an area of about 365 square metres.
A site around 365 square metres would be enough for a 4-bedroom house with a fairly large garden. Such a house would be suitable for a family of two adults and three children.
If 63 houses were to be built and each contained five people then the total number of adults and their children would be 315.
However the document "planningAppendixCSiteAssessmentForms” states an area of 3.14 hectares for the site. This would mean that about 86 houses could be built and about 430 adults and children would then be affected by aircraft both during the day and in the middle of the night.
If a higher housing density were to be allowed then a much higher number of residents would be affected by the adverse effect of planes flying over.
If permission was granted for the construction of houses then hundreds of people would live under or very close to the flight path of jet aircraft which are climbing at maximum thrust with all the high volume of noise which is entailed. As residents relaxed in their gardens all conversation would have to cease as planes passed over. This noise would reverberate and echo off the walls and roofs of nearby properties thus further increasing
the impact. Even with sound insulation the noise inside the houses would be noticeable.
Any open windows would let a considerable volume of noise in.
Aircraft engines emit nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide, partially combusted and unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter and other trace compounds.
What is likely to happen to these chemicals when aircraft fly over the houses? What is the possibility that they will be breathed in by the residents? How much will be washed down on to the houses, gardens and vegetable patches when it is raining?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the long-term health of the children who live in these houses and play in their gardens as jet aircraft blast out exhaust fumes above?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the mental health and educational progress of children if they are woken up in the middle of the night by cargo planes?
Complaints about night flights have come from the residents of Leigh because of lack of sleep.
As part of the Section 106 agreement between Southend Airport and local councils a preferred runway scheme was introduced. This states:-
“Preferred Runway Scheme During the night period – when weather and safety conditions allow – London Southend Airport is committed to operate all aircraft movements from and to the north east (over Rochford) as this is a much less densely populated area than that to the south west of the airport.
During the daytime – when weather and safety conditions allow and movement volumes allow the runway direction to be changed – London Southend Airport agreed to ensure that more than 50% of aircraft operations occur to and from the north east of the airfield over Rochford.”
This agreement can only operate meaningfully if there is open land at the north-east end of the runway. If the population size and density to the north east is increased, then the basis of the agreement is affected and the residents of Leigh might no longer be protected.
One only has to read items from “Essex Live” and “Southend Echo” about the experiences of those who live in the Leigh Area to gain an indication of the possible situation if houses were built on Site CF124.
Is the Council really prepared to allow others to be subjected to similar experiences and stresses?
Section 10 of the government document “CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN AIRPORT PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES” document states:-
“10. There should be a general presumption against new or replacement development, or changes of use of existing buildings, within Public Safety Zones. In particular, no new or replacement dwellinghouses, mobile homes, caravan sites or other residential buildings should be permitted. Nor should new or replacement non-residential development be permitted. Exceptions to this general presumption are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12.”.
The map of the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone shows that the zone extends into Site CFS124. The Civil Aviation Authority document “Proposal to Revise the Public Safety Zones at Southend Airport” contains relevant Annexes.
Aircraft which are taking off sometimes veer off the direct line from the runway and fly closer to the houses in Little Stambridge Hall Lane and Coombes Grove. On rare
occasions jet aircraft have actually flown over the houses in Little Stambridge.
In every airport zone there is the ever present danger of an aircraft crash soon after takeoff or just before landing. Site CFS124 is only a few minutes from the runway threshold.
Is the Council really prepared to allow housing development on a plot of land which contains part of a Public Safety Zone and is the main departure and final approach zone to an airport?
In my opinion no housing development should be allowed where there is even the slightest danger of an aircraft crashing as it departs from or approaches the airport runway.
Objection To Housing Development on Site CFS12 4
(Land east of Little Stambridge Hall Lane, Rochford)
Implicit in the function of local authorities is a responsibility to safeguard the quality of life, physical health, mental health and safety of all residents. Rochford District Council is no exception to this.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built, to the North-East of the airport runway threshold it would, in my opinion, affect this responsibility.
If the Council were to allow any houses to be built this would also materially change the basis of the Section 106 agreement which it reached with Southend Council and London Southend Airport. Part of this agreement depends upon the existence of fewer residents to
the North East of the runway.
Site CFS124 is about 1 mile from the threshold of the main runway of London Southend Airport.
All heavy jet-engined aircraft pass over the site when they take off or land. Executive jets, medium-sized turbo prop planes, small piston-engined planes and helicopters frequently pass over.
As they pass over the site after taking off, jet passenger and cargo aircraft are still climbing after take-off at very high thrust levels in order to gain height as rapidly as
possible. They create a very high volume of noise. Anyone who is walking along Little Stambridge Hall Lane by the side of this site has their voice drowned out and their ears bombarded with noise.
Engines are at high thrust and project sound downwards and to either side. Heavier aircraft have not yet reached the 1500 feet which they are required to attain before they can reduce power and change course.
The heavy jets which are coming in over the site are on their very final approach to the airport. They are at about 400 feet as they pass over. Their engines generate a high volume of noise. The sound builds up from quite a distance before they pass over the site.
If permission were to be granted for housing development all those who lived in the new residential area would be subjected to engine noise from heavy jets, executive jets, piston engined small aircraft, turbo-prop aircraft and helicopters flying right overhead or almost
right overhead. Piston engined smaller aircraft have a particularly loud, harsh, resonating and unpleasant impact on the ears.
The initial appraisal of this site on the Council website states that the area of land is 2.30 hectares. The assessment also states that the site is available for housing with a potential capacity of 63 houses. This gives a figure of 27.4 dwellings per hectare. Each housing site would therefore have an area of about 365 square metres.
A site around 365 square metres would be enough for a 4-bedroom house with a fairly large garden. Such a house would be suitable for a family of two adults and three children.
If 63 houses were to be built and each contained five people then the total number of adults and their children would be 315.
However the document "planningAppendixCSiteAssessmentForms” states an area of 3.14 hectares for the site. This would mean that about 86 houses could be built and about 430 adults and children would then be affected by aircraft both during the day and in the middle of the night.
If a higher housing density were to be allowed then a much higher number of residents would be affected by the adverse effect of planes flying over.
If permission was granted for the construction of houses then hundreds of people would live under or very close to the flight path of jet aircraft which are climbing at maximum thrust with all the high volume of noise which is entailed. As residents relaxed in their gardens all conversation would have to cease as planes passed over. This noise would reverberate and echo off the walls and roofs of nearby properties thus further increasing
the impact. Even with sound insulation the noise inside the houses would be noticeable.
Any open windows would let a considerable volume of noise in.
Aircraft engines emit nitrogen oxides, oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide, partially combusted and unburned hydrocarbons, particulate matter and other trace compounds.
What is likely to happen to these chemicals when aircraft fly over the houses? What is the possibility that they will be breathed in by the residents? How much will be washed down on to the houses, gardens and vegetable patches when it is raining?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the long-term health of the children who live in these houses and play in their gardens as jet aircraft blast out exhaust fumes above?
Is the Council really prepared to risk the mental health and educational progress of children if they are woken up in the middle of the night by cargo planes?
Complaints about night flights have come from the residents of Leigh because of lack of sleep.
As part of the Section 106 agreement between Southend Airport and local councils a preferred runway scheme was introduced. This states:-
“Preferred Runway Scheme During the night period – when weather and safety conditions allow – London Southend Airport is committed to operate all aircraft movements from and to the north east (over Rochford) as this is a much less densely populated area than that to the south west of the airport.
During the daytime – when weather and safety conditions allow and movement volumes allow the runway direction to be changed – London Southend Airport agreed to ensure that more than 50% of aircraft operations occur to and from the north east of the airfield over Rochford.”
This agreement can only operate meaningfully if there is open land at the north-east end of the runway. If the population size and density to the north east is increased, then the basis of the agreement is affected and the residents of Leigh might no longer be protected.
One only has to read items from “Essex Live” and “Southend Echo” about the experiences of those who live in the Leigh Area to gain an indication of the possible situation if houses were built on Site CF124.
Is the Council really prepared to allow others to be subjected to similar experiences and stresses?
Section 10 of the government document “CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT IN AIRPORT PUBLIC SAFETY ZONES” document states:-
“10. There should be a general presumption against new or replacement development, or changes of use of existing buildings, within Public Safety Zones. In particular, no new or replacement dwellinghouses, mobile homes, caravan sites or other residential buildings should be permitted. Nor should new or replacement non-residential development be permitted. Exceptions to this general presumption are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12.”.
The map of the Southend Airport Public Safety Zone shows that the zone extends into Site CFS124. The Civil Aviation Authority document “Proposal to Revise the Public Safety Zones at Southend Airport” contains relevant Annexes.
Aircraft which are taking off sometimes veer off the direct line from the runway and fly closer to the houses in Little Stambridge Hall Lane and Coombes Grove. On rare
occasions jet aircraft have actually flown over the houses in Little Stambridge.
In every airport zone there is the ever present danger of an aircraft crash soon after takeoff or just before landing. Site CFS124 is only a few minutes from the runway threshold.
Is the Council really prepared to allow housing development on a plot of land which contains part of a Public Safety Zone and is the main departure and final approach zone to an airport?
In my opinion no housing development should be allowed where there is even the slightest danger of an aircraft crashing as it departs from or approaches the airport runway.