Thank you for your letter of 19 2 09 giving opportunity to respond to above consultation.

At 1.5 Preferred Options, you say "feedback from Issues and Options Report has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area". In spite of statement that the bulk of respondents objected to "Scenario 3 - High Growth2, this is the option chosen, with comment at a meeting in the Freight House that the exercise was not meant to be a referendum. That casts doubt on its validity.

I object to the Preferred option as follows.

Issue 2 Jaap as employment area

Vide HAAP, where demolition of Hockley trading estate is proposed for housing etc, we hear traders are to be moved to new Saxon Business park. No doubt other trading sites will be moved there also for similar reasons. So much for proposed 5450 new jobs in the JAAP.

Issue 3 development/environment

Inspite of proposed "quieter more fuel efficient planes than predecessors"< it is "accepted environmental impacts (noise) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of increased aircraft movements and traffic in area". There is some contradiction here and an admission that those under the flight path in Southend area will suffer. Two area authorities "Continuing to work to establish a baseline of noise levels" is admission that proximity to a large, dense residential area of proposed expanded airport is possibly unacceptable and a "Noise Evaluation Statement" by any future operator will just whitewash it.

Transport

Would it be a good idea to get full infrastructure details of road and transport networks worked out first? There is no guarantee that a hypothetical operator will pay for SERT or any other initiatives.

Policies T1-2

It appears from Nestuda Way to Warners Bridge a lot more demolition of homes will occur than is envisaged already for extending the runway. Although St Lawrence church was saved, the addition construction, followed by transiting planes might well shake it to pieces. Are we also reconsidering the bypass from Shoebury through Rochford green belt here?

Policy T3

If Cherry Orchard Way is to be dualled, what requirements will there be to further 'update' the remainder of b1013 between Rayleigh and Rochford, that has already increased congestion since the cherry Orchard bypass was opened? Compulsory purchase of front gardens was used to widen b1013 in Hockley in the 1960s. This time homes will go as well.

Policy T9

There is already airport provision at Stansted. Why should operators come here? It does appear from "existing and proposed communities with new development sites...support...promote..new development...by public transport links" that airport expansion is a ploy to provide future new road networks round south east Essex, for massive new development. Southend is already fully developed and evidently needs to expand. The initial amendment of the green belt boundary proposed in the document could show the way for more in the future for development.