Object

Representation ID: 43200

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs J Spencer

Southend airport seems to get a fair mention in your report, worrying when I see a comment stating " its not possible currently to identify precise land use requirements for the growth" lets take this item first.

The whole area around the airport is built up, I am struggling to see where you would take any land from to extend the airport, if you are making a statement, perhaps it would be a good idea to at least mention where you may obtain the space from.

You state that the airport will apply for proper planning framework to replace the current JAAP 106, you also state that the airport has brought over 2000 jobs, if my memory serves me correctly when the JAAP and the extention was agreed, the number quoted was 6000 jobs that would be created, which never ever happened, so how can you quote a figure of 7000 jobs?
You also state that the airport business park would eventually create 5000 jobs, again where have you got these figures from? also please could you tell me why the airport has any say over this?
You also state that London Southend is a notable economic asset, but you never ever state any figures to back this up!!

I appreciate that most councillors support the airport, but you are listing information that makes the airport sounds as though its Rochford/Southend only asset, but it's not, so please explain why all these figures have been quoted, if anything they should be withdrawn as the past JAAP proved to be incorrect and it never ever produced the number of jobs stated.

Its quite clear that residents currently under the current 106 fall short of protection from noise and pollution and the current cargo flights that operate during the night, do not allow residents more that 2.30hrs sleep between movements.

Current studies show that sleep depravation is a major player in mental health and health disorders, but on allowing the original extention to the runway and the 120 night flights per month, now residents do not have any more than 2.30 hours sleep between night flights, with passenger flights that operating from 6.30am.
The airport before the extension never used the 900 quota, nor were the planes operating 4/5 times a night, also the noise is now greater due to the extension and the 30 year old noisy cargo planes.
If you want the airport to extend and have more flights what protection are you going to put in for the residents to be allowed 7 hours sleep a night without being woken up?
The fumes and the smell from the airport are choking at times, Southend currently runs along the same guidelines at Heathrow, hence why they meet all their targets.
What will the council do to change these targets and make them more stricter in line with a small airport in the middle of a very built up residential town, unfortunately we do not have the luxury of being surrounded by a motorway, therefore on top of the aviation fumes and toxic emissions we also have high levels of traffic around the area.

Therefore my objection is that the airport cannot be allowed to extend the runway or extend its air movements and night flights should be banned to allow residents sleep. Any changes to the 106 should now be more in favour of residents and not the airport.

Greenbelt Land

It would seem that greenbelt land doesn't really mean anything now, because of government figures for required housing, they have to go somewhere.
The airport would be an ideal place for housing and a desperately needed new hospital, schools, doctors can be accessed from different locations.
Why have you not put any proposals on this report with this idea in mind? and asked for peoples thoughts, you would then only have to use a fraction of greenbelt land, this is a vast area and should be considered.

This report is very much in favour of the airport, figures quoted for employment have not been backed up, the big asset that you say it is, how much money does it actually bring to the town, again no figures quoted.