Re Preferred Options decided by who?

Dear Sir

The airport can only expand in one direction - to the north and within a narrow corridor on the western side of the airfield. The present controlling nucleus of the airport is to the extreme south side of the field.

The area to the north of the airport that you intend to include within the airport's boundaries is therefore a considerable distance from the present control nucleus. Thus producing two separated areas; being vertually two islands of airport activity, separated still further by the runway, planned to be lengthened with its resited, longer connecting roads thus making these two separated islands of activity, one in the north, the main one in the south; even further apart and so will make operating this airport design inefficient and very costly to control plus obvious transportation problems.

Siting the rail station of the eastern boundary is easily reached using the airfield perimter road. Thus connecting sufficiently the controlling hub of the airport in the south with the rail station passengers. Through your design this would not be possible on the planned expansion area as no provision appears to include a perimeter road which'd reduce the area of expansion quite drastically. Resiting GREEN-BELT boundaries, to make a poor design for an airport to appear a little more attractive than it really is - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

The subject of the airports expected FREIGHT programme(s) are totally avoided! Why?

When was "extensive public consultation" carried out (Your Views 6.1). WHY is nobody, the public around the airport; aware of this?

Issue 3 Noise and air quality; to increased aircraft movements enhance each other! What plans can change this?

Issue 5 "Areas for Change" - needs to be directed at the above, visual and noise intrusion.