1.1.2 Sustainability Appraisal

I we are talking about the sustainability of increasing flights, again this could now be affected by the latest increases in fuel costs.

Sustainability Appraisal

With regard to the SA (we note that so far that a Scoping Report and supporting SA has been prepared) as you move forward with refining and testing your options, we would expect you to include a detailed summary of the sustainability effects of each the different options, in terms of their impacts on the social, economic and environmental baselines.

Sustainability Appraisal (continued)

At Submission, you will need to be able to demonstrate that the JAAP policies represent the most appropriate response in all the circumstances, having considered all the relevant alternatives, and that they are founded on a robust and credible evidence base.

LSACL has a number of comments on the published Sustainability Appraisal and the associated Scoping report. Most of these are minor corrections which would not affect the soundness of the evidence and will be submitted separately. Some of the points are the same as for the Evidence Base report and are not repeated here. However, the following additional points should be addressed to ensure that the evidence is sound:
. The Scoping report should mention the Future of Air Transport White paper of 2003 when reviewing national policies.
. The Sustainability Appraisal scores Scenarios 2(b) and 3 differently on airport related environmental objectives, yet the two scenarios are noted as relating to the same level of passenger throughput
. The Sustainability Appraisal could take account of improvements which would come from conditions or section 106 agreements in the higher growth options, which would not be possible with low growth.
. Although one of the objectives is safety, none of the scenarios is scored in terms of aviation safety. In order to achieve the required safety standards, each of the scenarios is likely to have an effect on the runway configuration. Thus, Scenarios 1 and 2(a) risk having to shorten the runway to provide the required RESA at the north east end. Scenario 2(b) could, in addition, require the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. Scenario 3 enables a number of improvements to take place such that a positive result can be achieved in safety.
. The Sustainability Appraisal scores employment and wealth creation on the basis of no action being taken to match skills to jobs, whereas the whole point of the JAAP is to do just that.

Thank you for your consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the document I wish to make the following comments in response to the questions posed within the document:

Q 2.2
The issue of land contamination in the Airport study area should not be overlooked. There is the potential for contamination to be present in areas around the site where development/redevelopment may take place. Development should be seen as an opportunity to remediate land and bring it back into effective use in accordance with PPS23.

Water use/resource and water quality are also omitted from the document. Growth of Southend airport and associated development will place additional pressures upon water resources, wastewater treatment and disposal and surface water run off. Large scale development offers opportunities for initiatives for water harvesting and water recycling systems as part of the overall drainage and water management strategy at a site wide level. To achieve the Government's aim of sustainable development, more efficient use of water in new and existing developments is essential. Within the drainage strategy there are opportunities to improve the water quality discharged from the site.

There is no clear steer on waste issues during or after construction. We would wish to see a commitment to high rates of recycling of demolition materials and measures to incorporate recycled materials within the construction. We would like to see a commitment in this development to minimise construction waste at the design stage. We would also like to see those involved in this development commit to measures to minimise waste to landfill and avoid disposal of unused materials.

The implications of the Water Framework Directive must be understood and incorporated within the development of the airport if it may affect the local waterbodies. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is a major opportunity to improve the whole water environment and promote the sustainable use of water. It applies to all surface water bodies, including lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters out to one mile from low water, and to artificial waters such as canals. It also applies to groundwater.

Q 3.2
The Objectives discuss 'Ensuring a high quality environment for residents' with explicit reference to noise pollution and protection of green space but the wider environment is not considered in the objectives. The importance of improving and enhancing greenspace and biodiversity, limiting and adapting to climate change, reducing flood risk, minimising waste, improving land quality, improved water quality are not addressed. This objective could be expanded to consider protecting and enhancing the whole environment.

Q 4.4
Any future employment growth in the JAAP should be directed away from the Flood Risk areas, as identified on the Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps.

Q 4.8
Every opportunity should be taken to protect and enhance any existing habitats and protected species present in the JAAP area. The creation of habitat will help contribute towards local targets, eg. Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and meet the requirements of PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological conservation.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can help reduce the impact of flooding arising from development. SuDS schemes can help reduce surface water runoff rates and volumes whilst also addressing water quality issues, if implemented during development of sites around the airport.

Q 4.9
One of the greatest long-term challenges affecting development of the airport is that of climate change; both the need to adapt to a changing climate and limit any possible future change.

Adaptation to the already inevitable change could involve choices such as providing new open space and green infrastructure that can provide urban cooling, SuDS and conserve and enhance biodiversity.

We want to see greater emphasis on managing demand for water, as well as using water more efficiently to help manage pressures on water resources. Climate change is expected to reduce the amount of water available, particularly in the South East, whilst, at the same time, we continue to use even more water.

We need to manage biodiversity in different ways in the face of climate change. Whilst making sure our existing protected sites are resilient to climate change, we need to move to landscape scale approaches to managing habitats to help encourage the movement of species as the climate changes.

While limitation of future climate changes can involve the highest possible level of resource and energy efficiency to reduce emissions. Further information is available in PPS1 supplement: Planning and Climate Change.

We support using larger amounts of renewable energy from a wider variety of sources, helping limit greenhouse gas emissions. Development should seek to secure the highest viable resource and energy efficient standards and maximise sustainable transport options.

Q 4.10
Improvements in public transport and more sustainable transport links are welcomed.

Q 4.12
Some of the specific areas of change listed in this document have significant environmental constraints that may limit development. Comments are made below in relation to each of the sites:

ii) Part of this areas falls within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk), in the areas adjacent to the river to the north of this section. According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
iii) The entire area of this site falls within Flood Zone 3 (high risk). Development in Flood Zone 3 must be subject to the sequential test of PPS25, to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
iv) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe. Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site.
v) The Biodiversity and habitat value of this area must be assessed when considering this site for redevelopment. PPS9 promotes the need to protect and enhance biodiversity during redevelopment.
vi) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located with in the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
vii) No constraints
viii) No constraints
ix) Land adjacent to the railway has the potential to be contaminated. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.
x) No constraints
xi) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. Use of the site as football pitches/sports recreation areas forms an acceptable use within the flood zone. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe. Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site.

Q5.1 5.3: The following comments are made in relation to each potential growth scenario.

5.2 Scenario 1: Low Growth

Under the section of Environmental issues Flood risk is classed as Medium. This is incorrect. Part of Aviation Way Business Park falls within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks.

5.3 Scenario 2(a): Medium Growth

Business park extension to the North of Aviation Way is appropriate as there are no significant environmental constraints. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can manage surface water runoff to reduce the risk of flooding and also create areas of open/green space that contribute to increased habitat and biodiversity, creating green links between sites.

Under the section of Environmental issues Flood risk is classed as Medium. This is incorrect. Part of Aviation Way Business Park falls within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks. This will help improve the water quality of Rayleigh and Eastwood Brooks. Enhancement of water features should also be considered in line with the Draft Sustainability report accompanying this JAAP.

Environmental enhancements to site (v), (ix) (ii) and (iii) are encouraged.

Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.

5.4 Scenario 2 (b): Medium Growth Aviation Cluster

Area (iii) to the west of the current airport ancillary area is entirely located in Flood Zone 3. The sequential test (PPS25) must demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites within lower flood risk areas before development areas can be allocated within the high risk flood zone.

Extension of the Airport Boundary to include a field adjoining the north maintenance zone takes in an area of high risk Flood zone. Any extension to this boundary would give the impression that development in this area is appropriate. This is not the case. All development should be directed to the lowest flood zones first. The aim of PPS25 is to steer all new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (PPS25 para D1). Only where there are no alternative sites within lower flood risk zone (applying the sequential test) would development be appropriate. However, within the airport boundary and the JAAP study area there are considerable areas of Flood Zone 1 that would be more appropriate for development.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks.

Environmental enhancements to the area are encouraged. Existing habitats should be protected and enhanced where possible. In line with the draft Sustainability Appraisal, a comprehensive ecological impact and management study should be commissioned to identify relevant issues for the site.

Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.

5.5 Scenario 3: High Growth

MRO: Area (iii) to the west of the current airport ancillary area is entirely located in Flood Zone 3. The sequential test (PPS25) must demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites within lower flood risk areas before development can be allocated within the high risk flood zone.

Extension of the Airport Boundary to include a field adjoining the north maintenance zone takes in an area of high risk Flood zone. Any extension to this boundary would give the impression that development in this area is appropriate. This is not the case. All development should be directed to the lowest flood zones first. The aim of PPS25 is to steer all new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (PPS25 para D1). Only where there are no alternative sites within a lower flood risk zone (applying the sequential test) would development be appropriate. However, within the airport boundary and the JAAP study area there are considerable areas of Flood Zone 1 that would be more appropriate for development.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks. The level of pollution incidences should not be allowed to increase. Measures can be incorporated into development to reduce the risk of a pollution event occurring.

The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can manage surface water runoff to reduce the risk of flooding and also create areas of open/green space that contribute to increased habitat and biodiversity, creating green links between sites.

Environmental enhancements to the area, including Eastwood Brook are encouraged. In line with the draft Sustainability Appraisal, a comprehensive ecological impact and management study should be commissioned to identify relevant issues for the site.

In the draft Sustainability Appraisal this option scores negatively against many environmental objectives. The above comments should be taken on board, particularly with respect to enhancement and mitigation measures to ensure that the final plan scores positively against the environmental objectives.

Draft Sustainability Appraisal

In the comparison of each scenario against the environmental objectives, flood risk is given little consideration. Many of the areas for intensification of development of new development fall within the high flood risk areas (not medium as stated).

According to PPS25 new development in flood risk areas should be avoided, therefore these scenarios would score negatively against a flood risk objective.

Development in low flood risk areas should also seek to reduce the impact of flooding arising from development by appropriate management of surface water runoff.

p6 Environment section does not include Water Resource, nor does it address Waste Management. Climate Change should be expanded to include other measures in 4.9 above.

Medium and High Growth Scenario opportunities to use site wide initiatives for heat and Power (CHP), waste management, surface water management should be considered under these scenarios. Large scale development provides greater opportunities for a co-ordinated approach to many issues.

SA Recommendations Within this section we would welcome a commitment to level 4 or above of the code for sustainable homes and BREEAM Excellent rating for commercial and industrial buildings. We would also welcome a commitment to produce % of energy from renewable sources for the site.

Evidence Base report

For information it is likely that a South Essex Water Cycle Study & Strategic Flood Risk Assessment update will be commissioned shortly. Should these studies go ahead, the results should feed into the Sustainability Assessment report.

Flood Zone 3 is classified as the high risk flood zone, see PPS25 table D1. This definition of the flood zones should be used for planning purposes. The reports refer to the flood risk being classified as medium, this is probably taken from the definitions used on the Environment Agency website that is used for household insurance purposes. These definitions are not to be used for planning purposes.

Substainability is a moot point when we are discussing potential expansion of an airport. Given the short & medium term out look for the aviation industry, with spare capacity at other local major airports about to reveal itself (Ryanair grounding 15 out of its 43 aircraft at Stansted this winter as just one example), the already weak case for expanding Southend Airport appears even weaker, & should not be supported by Rochford.

1. Summary

On the basis of the information given CPREssex would reject scenarios (options) 2(b) and 3.

Our assessment of the key issues shows why. Ultimately it is about the inherently unsustainable nature of aviation expansion.

Globally this is first and foremost about aviation's contribution to climate change. Locally it is a matter of quality of life versus unsustainable development. Whilst there are claimed local economic advantages, we contend that only the enhancement of the MRO activity without aviation growth by a factor of 40 times appears to be achievable without unacceptable environmental damage.

The aviation-growth business model predicated on growth in low-cost, short-haul tourist flights is overall a negative contributor to the UK economy. (In 2007 the UK trade balance in travel and tourism showed a record £19.5bn deficit. It creates tourism jobs overseas at the expense of jobs in the local, regional and UK economies.)

Recourse to National policy for support is increasingly seen to be ill founded. Increases in fuel prices, the general economic downturn and the growing recognition of the seriousness of climate change threats have altered aviation market conditions and have led authoritative bodies to call for a review of national aviation policies.

Current policy runs counter to the government's own policy for sustainable development.

We believe that the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life is the most important responsibility of local authorities and this cannot be squared with a huge increase in aviation activity and the associated development.

We have noted some information gaps that need to be filled. We also found that the IOR report was poorly linked to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal and Evidence Base Report. This made it sometimes difficult to locate relevant underlying information.

CPRE can make only limited comments, or none, on some important impacts notably on biodiversity/ecology, air quality and built heritage.

The Councils/Airport Owners should ensure they consult Essex Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings and any relevant local bodies on these issues.

2. Environmental Issues

2.1 Green Belt

Only scenarios 1 and 2(a) are claimed to involve no change to the Metropolitan Green Belt (MGB). However Fig 5.1 p54 shows an incursion into the MGB an extension to area (vi). And Fig 5.2, Scenario 2(a), in fact shows two incursions into the MGB. These apparent contradictions require explanation.

The other two scenarios proposing large growth in passenger aviation activity document progressively greater negative impacts (Tables 11.5.3 and 11.5.4). The results would be increasingly damaging and, scenario 3 would involve loss of about 50% of green belt currently outside the airport boundary but within the JAAP area.

CPRE is wholly against any loss of MGB, especially so in this part of the UK which is already becoming over-developed. The Green Belt prevents urban sprawl and the merging of nearby urbanisations. It provides openness and varying degrees of tranquillity and a habitat for wildlife. It contributes to quality of life, mental and physical health and well-being.

We find some statements referring to Green Belt to be somewhat euphemistically worded and references to mitigation/compensation that misrepresent the reality of what is proposed. We do not wish to 'nit-pick' but these are important documents and lack of clarity could mislead. Examples are:

Under Option 2(b) the Sustainability Appraisal says:
"Although no designated areas of landscape value are located within the site, the series of hedgerows, scattered trees, ruderal [sic] vegetation and other greenery within the greenbelt area provide a landscape character to the area which will be reduced under this proposal. Enhancements to areas v and ix provide compensation to this significant negative effect, therefore the medium growth scenario is marked negative against this objective."

We appreciate that a 'negative' rating is still given. But we do not accept that significant negative effects of this nature can be mitigated by some apparently minor, unspecified enhancements elsewhere in areas that are of a different character. Unacceptable damage is unacceptable damage.

Under Scenario 1 (low growth) there is claimed to be no landscape impact. Under scenario 2 (a) the claimed advantages and disadvantages are shown as follows:

Advantages
Expansion of country park area will potentially protect the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. The development of the Brickworks' site could potentially enhance the visual quality of the derelict area. Local recreational and amenity improvements would support the overall landscape quality in the JAAP.

Disadvantages
Situated directly to the west of the Brickworks' site, lies the Cherry Orchard Jubilee Country Park, situated within a Special Landscape Area. This area is designated for its landscape and ecological quality. Development of the Brickworks' site could potentially negatively impact on the landscape character and visual amenity of the surrounding landscape. The negative impact of visual amenity would affect both recreational users of the Country Park and surrounding areas, and residents of Cherry Orchard Lane. Similarly expansion of the employment area would have similar negative impacts on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.

The negative impacts clearly outweigh positive impacts. The net result of Brickworks site development would be negative. We cannot comment on the degree to which "local recreational and amenity improvements would support the overall landscape quality in the JAAP" for one thing these improvements are not specified. Also, this is ultimately a quality of life issue and requires direct input from local residents as to what matters and why.

In the Table under para 5.4.1 in the IOR report against Green Belt the text says:

"The Green Belt boundary would be revised to reflect development land requirements for the period of the JAAP. This would include taking the Green Belt around the airport boundary and any new land allocations justified through the future role of the area. By drawing the Green Belt tight to new allocations no further scope for development would be envisaged in the JAAP area."

This is largely unintelligible. Figure 5.3 on p 66 shows the reality approximately 50% of Green Belt outside the airport boundary (but inside the JAAP) will be lost.

2.2 Noise

The IOR and other documents acknowledge that there would be increased noise both from increased surface transport (unless fully mitigated by a modal shift to public transport) and from increased air transport movements (ATMs).

The impact of an additional 2 million passengers travelling to and from the airport in an already congested area of surface transport cannot be countenanced unless a very large proportion indeed travel by public transport. Any proposal for expansion of passenger aviation must be accompanied by funded plans to achieve this.

In 2007, according to CAA statistics, there was a total of about 878 ATMs carrying 49,000 passengers (average passengers per flight 560. One million passengers per annum at the same loading would mean some 17,800 ATMs on average 49 flights per day. If 2 million passengers were carried the result would be around 35,700 ATMs 98 flights per day, on average. (all projections are based on the current runway/aircraft type and load factor)-

According to local opinion, a sizeable portion of Western Southend could be affected by noise from the increased numbers of flights. The greatly increased flights will be heard and seen over most of the town and a large part of Westcliff, Leigh and Eastwood will no longer be able to enjoy the quiet of their back garden on a weekend afternoon. There are also concerns about the several local schools which would be close to the flight paths.

It does not take much imagination to realise the impact on the quality of life to local residents and the potential loss of tranquillity in the surrounding countryside to the north and east of Southend.

2.3 Light Pollution

There is no reference to lighting impacts either light pollution or light nuisance. New airport buildings and car parks are potentially damaging sources of the former. If located near to residential areas they may also constitute light nuisances. New buildings in the industrial areas within the JAAP would be subject to the same comments. Light pollution and light nuisance should be covered in all scenarios.

2.4 Surface Water

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) says (appendix 1):

"The airport will continue discharging waste-water into the brooks within the site through the interceptor. Any natural growth of the airport activities is likely to decrease [sic] or maintain the current bad water quality in the brooks."

We assume that 'decrease' as used here means 'make worse'. This would be unacceptable in terms of potential impact on landscape and wildlife. This statement applies to scenario 1. Other scenarios are likely to make the water quality progressively worse. We echo a later statement in the SA.

"It is imperative for the detailed development plans to set out strategies to ensure the water quality is maintained." albeit current quality is said to be poor.

2.5 Agriculture

We note that under scenario 3 the runway would be extended into agricultural land. Whether or not this is currently used for crops, the real and growing threat of food shortages (virtually inevitable with world and UK population growth) argues against any reduction of agricultural land. We have to preserve the means to produce as much as possible of our food in the UK. The increasing cost of 'food miles' also points to producing more at home.

2.6 Biodiversity

This is not our area of expertise. We are however pleased to note the statement in the SA in relation to Scenario 1 that:

"A detailed ecological assessment and management plan shall be required to predict and influence the biodiversity structure in the JAAP area."

There are similar more specific statements on other scenarios. We would be opposed to any scenario that has a negative impact on biodiversity.

2.7 Build Heritage

The Evidence Base Report Part 1 Para 5.8.2 p66 says

There are 81 listed buildings within the wider area covered, of which 3 lie within the study area. These buildings are:

A milestone on the verge of the Southend Road (NMR listed building No. 123241) which is a Grade II listing;
'Cherry Orchard' (NMR No. 123182) a timber-framed 17th century Grade II listed house, and;
The Church of St Laurence and All Saints (NMR No 122902) on Eastwoodbury Lane which is a Grade I listing.

There are two more listed buildings that appear to abut the northwestern corner of the study area boundary. These are both Grade II listings:
Nos. 17 and 19 Southend Road (NMR No 123240) and;
Nos. 39 and 41 Southend Road (NMR No. 123242).

The July 2005 AMP said (p45 paras 146 and 147) said:

"146...new requirement to introduce Runway End Safety Areas (RESAs) led to considerations of a runway reconfiguration, which was eventually rejected. The RESAs now in place are 90m in length at the northeast and 240m in length at the southwest end. Additionally, at the southwest end, Eastwoodbury Lane is now protected by traffic lights and an automatic barrier, which are activated when certain aircraft take off. In these ways the safety requirements of the CAA have been met. Land has been acquired on lease for these improvements.
147 Although the issue of the proximity of St Laurence and All Saints Church remains, and this has been accepted by the Civil Aviation Authority, there is no requirement now or in the future to disturb any of the graves. The Airport will continue to work with the Church authorities to find a way to reduce the infringement of the CAA regulation in respect of the boundary fence and trees.

But the Evidence Base Report Part 2 Table 11.5.3 p138 says:

"Land development could impact on the setting of existing features of archaeological and cultural heritage interest eg Church of St Laurence and All Saints, and could also potential [sic] damage unknown/buried features of interest."

Table 11.5.4 p 141 has the same statement in respect of Scenario 3

We find this very disturbing and trust the church authorities are fully informed of this issue. We need a clear unequivocal statement if any proposed development option would infringe CAA regulations in such a way as to result in impact/damage to the church (or other listed buildings) and, indeed of any known threat to built heritage.

3.1 Modal Shares

Section 4.1 of Part 1 of the Evidence Base p26 refers to

The Airport's Surface Access Strategy published in August 2006 and the Transport Assessment for the proposed new Parkway Station undertaken by Bettridge Turner and Partners in 2005 were analysed in order to obtain further information about the surface access to the study area.

The new railway station could hopefully contribute to an increase in non-private car access to the airport. Para 4.3.5 p30 reveals

"According to the Airport Surface Access Strategy, the staff survey carried out in 2006 revealed that 79% of staff drive to work alone, 7% car share, 11% use bicycle, 4% use motorcycles, 3% use the bus and 5% walk to work. 50% of car users say it is the quickest way."

This is the only indicator given of the likely modal split under current circumstances. We have found no forecasts in the evidence base of future modal splits with passenger numbers vastly increased to 1mppa and eventually 2mppa.

This is a vital issue given current road congestion in the area. Para 4.5.1 p40 lists surface access recommendations. These are purely aspirational. We find it unacceptable that the development proposals in the JAAP have no concrete accompanying surface access plan, nor any clear statement of who would be responsible for funding including the share to be borne by the airport owners.

Surface access forecasts and modal shares need to be published for all scenarios.

Any growth in passenger numbers should be catered for by maximum use of public transport. Any development plan should seek to greatly reduce the number of journeys by car, without which it would be unsustainable and environmentally damaging. Together with the increased air traffic movements, hugely increased road traffic will damage air quality creating both a health hazard and potential damage to the natural environment.

A genuinely sustainable surface access strategy is required.

3.2 New Station

Conceptually this would be a welcome development and would contribute to improvement in surface access modal split.

We are however concerned that the proposed car parking for commuters at the new station would lead to increased car journeys an unsustainable outcome the proposers should prepare surface access forecasts for all scenarios.

3.3 Scenario 3 Road Closure

We are unclear about the possible implications of the proposed re-routing of Eastwoodbury Lane.

4. Climate Change

We appreciate that the increase in passenger numbers/aircraft movements proposed by Southend Airport in its Airport Master Plan4, although very large in percentage terms are not large in absolute numbers. Nevertheless, aviation emissions are a significant contributor to climate change both via the amount of CO2 emissions and through the radiative forcing effect that means a tonne of CO2 at flight altitudes has almost twice the impact of a tonne at ground level.

Government figures show that in 2005 aviation accounted for 13% of total UK climate change damage. That is an understatement because it is based on departing flights only: if the calculation is based on return flights by UK citizens in 2007 the figure would be nearer 20%. The figure for CO2 alone is 6.3%, but this is multiplied by 2 to take radiative forcing into account. This was confirmed by Gillian Merron, Aviation Minister, in response to a Parliamentary Question by Peter Ainsworth, in the Commons on 2nd May.

The UK has set targets for CO2 reduction across industry. But aviation emissions if allowed to increase on the 'predict and provide model' will negate this target. By 2050 it is claimed, aviation will represent 29% of UK carbon emissions, a calculation based on a 60% cut on 1990 levels of all emissions excluding aviation. But if all our emissions, including aviation, are to be cut by 80% by 2050 as is now recommended by scientists, aviation's proportion will look very much higher than 29%. This makes any increase in aviation activity fundamentally unacceptable from the climate change viewpoint unless it could be achieved on a carbon neutral basis.

5. Economic Factors

5.1 Local Factors

We would support council policies to safeguard and enhance the Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) business, its employment and skill base. We note that MRO employment currently outweighs aviation employment by a factor of about 7 (910 to 140). 7 However, the skill sets would be totally different and, with some exceptions, the aviation jobs would be lower skilled.

We note the evidence base report draws on the employment forecasts made in July 2005 Master plan. These relate to the proposal to increase aviation to 2mppa on the existing runway.

*The growth of the airport to 2 mppa by 2030 will result in a significant increase in employment associated with the airport and aviation industry from current levels. Total employment supported by the airport to 2030 under this growth model is 2,400 FTEs. This includes 2,110 direct FTEs (910 air side and 1,200 MRO); 100 indirect and 190 induced FTEs. Within the plan period to 2021 the report indicates that in 2020 the employment supported would be 2,160 FTEs including 1,900 direct FTEs (700 air side and 1,200 MRO); 90 indirect and 170 induced FTEs. Therefore, the additionality created by this growth model to 2020 (over and above 2005 employment) is 1,110 FTEs including 970 direct FTEs and 140 indirect/induced FTEs."

This shows the forecast incremental FTE employment to be 290 MRO (32%) and airside 770 (550%). It supports the general expectation that an increase in aviation activity of itself generates predominantly lower skill, service jobs. The skill sets required for many of these jobs are reported to be in short supply in the area, according to prior studies (6) quoted on ps 128 and 129 of the Evidence Report Part 2.

There are no forecasts for the extended runway option but the source assumes that the above staff levels would be reached earlier.

In both cases the required aviation staff would apparently need to be drawn from outside the area, involving travel much of it by car on current modal share information an unsustainable outcome.

5.2 Wider Issues

On wider economic issues our comments are:

Businesses are reported to be planning to reduce not increase air travel. The WWF-UK has released a new report, which shows that the majority of UK FTSE 350 businesses hope to cut business flights in the coming decade.

Low cost flights are under pressure from the high cost of oil and increased charges. Inclusion of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme will also have an impact. Flights from Stansted, far from rising to its current 25mppa cap, have fallen in the past two years from 24mppa to 22mppa in 2007.

BAA now acknowledges that the second Stansted runway will not open until at least 2015 (assuming approval is given).

It is inferred, but not clearly stated in the IOR that aviation growth would be based on the low-cost short haul model. It should be noted that in terms of the UK economy this has a negative impact. More such flights will put further strain on the UK trade balance in travel and tourism which showed a record 19.5bn deficit in 2007 (£18.4bn in 2006) and will create tourism jobs overseas at the expense of jobs in the local, regional and UK economies.

We find the appeal to appeal to complete the expansion programme in time for the London Olympics somewhat irrational. This will be a short-term 'blip' that can in no way justify a development that will be irreversible and have a lasting impact on the community and local environment as well as on the wider scale.

6. National Policies

The December 2003 Air Transport White Paper (ATWP) states "The Government recognises the benefits that the expansion in air travel has brought to people's lives and to the economy of this country. Its increased affordability has opened up the possibilities of foreign travel for many people, and it provides the rapid access that is vital to many modern businesses. But we have to balance those benefits against the environmental impacts of air travel, in particular the growing contribution of aircraft emissions to climate change and the significant impact that airports can have on those living nearby."

The government has also committed to sustainable development ("A Better Quality of Life, A Strategy for Sustainable Development" ...quot; 1999)

We contend that the core strategy of the ATWP at national and Essex levels is inherently flawed and that the massive growth in aviation envisioned by the plan is unsustainable and runs counter to the government's own principles of sustainable development.

The ATWP has also been overtaken by events not least the growing awareness of the seriousness of the climate change threat.

Concern has been such that the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) together with the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has proposed adoption of a totally new approach to aviation policy making. Including a review of the ATWP.

In relation to local plans, the Sustainability Appraisal Report (SAR) carried out by independent consultants for East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) prior to publication of its draft plan underlines the fundamental unsustainability of aviation expansion.

"But the acceptance of growth at all, and the reference to an 'acceptable balance' between economic benefits and environmental and other considerations, still fails to grasp the point that further growth in air travel provision is environmentally unsustainable.

SOUTHEND AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DPD: ISSUES AND OPTIONS
DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL REPORT

Thank you for your letter dated 24 June 2007 consulting English Heritage on the above documents.

General comments and context

In commenting on the Joint Area Action Plan [JAAP] it is useful to refer to the involvement of English Heritage in previous expansion proposals at Southend Airport.

In 2003 we responded to a planning application for a proposed extension of the existing airport runway and, as a part of this, demolition of St Laurence and All Saints Church, listed grade I, located at the south-east end of the runway. While not physically on land needed for the runway extension, we understood that requirements for space around the runway, including height restrictions, necessitated demolition of the church. At that time we had several meetings with the airport operator and interested parties regarding the impact on the church, which included discussion of a proposal by the applicant for its relocation. We did not support relocation of the listed building; neither did we think it feasible. These proposals were subsequently withdrawn. A copy of our letter to Southend Borough Council dated 12 March 2003 is attached, for information. This provides more detail regarding the importance of the church.

The Airport Master Plan published in 2005 does not identify any physical impact on the grade I church. At the public examination of the East of England Plan in 2006 Southend Borough Council confirmed to the Panel that expansion at the airport would not necessitate the demolition of the church. We assume that this remains the case.

Turning to the current consultation documents, we are surprised to find no clear references to St Laurence and All Saints church given its position in the site. The draft Sustainability Appraisal identifies no cultural sites within the JAAP area in the assessment of scenarios. The overview of environmental assets and constraints in the Issues and Options document also omits to mention the existence of the church, and other heritage designations, and thus the appraisal of the 4 development scenarios is lacking in this important respect. Looking at the JAAP Evidence Report [Halcrow June 2008] and the SA Scoping Report we note that impacts on cultural heritage, and specifically St Laurence and All Saints, are noted. These appear to have been overlooked in the main documents they inform.

Even if we can assume that physical destruction of St Laurence's is not involved in any options, an assessment is required of other potential effects, particularly the effect of noise. We believe that noise contour maps, or other representation of noise, should be included to inform the appraisal of options. The sustainability appraisal refers to background studies but does not assist in providing judgements on noise for each option other than in the most general terms.

In order to provide a fully informed response, we would need the following information, for all options:
i) confirmation that St Laurence and All Saint's Church is not proposed for demolition;
ii) assessment of noise impacts [ground and air noise] for the church and other heritage assets, including Rochford Conservation Area;
iii) assessment of other impacts that might affect the setting or viability of the church, such as development in the vicinity, vibration levels, likely changes to lighting provision or access and
iv) taking account of the foregoing, an appraisal of whether St Laurence and All Saint's Church would be able to remain in use as a parish church, and measures for its proposed future protection and use.

Notwithstanding the need for more information, we set out below some specific comments on the questions in the Issues and Options Report, and on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Joint Area Action Plan [JAAP]

1. Introduction

We welcome the commitment to 'ensure the protection of areas and places sensitive to change' [section 1.1, 2nd bullet]. This has particular relevance in relation to the cultural heritage assets of the site and its environs.

2. Assets, Opportunities and Constraints

Q2.1Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?
No. Section 2.5 fails to address cultural heritage within the airport site adequately.

Q2.2 Are there any important assets or issues missing from the assessment?
Yes. Notwithstanding the photographs on pages 24 and 26, the church of St Laurence and All Saints is not mentioned. Given the significance of the building, and its proximity to the runway, this constraint should be referred to very clearly. Section 2.5 appears to address the cultural heritage beyond the airport boundary appropriately while neglecting that within the site.

3. Vision and Objectives

Q3.1 Do you agree with the overall Vision for the JAAP?
We suggest the following amendment:
'...employment opportunities while safeguarding the quality of life of its residents and workers. To achieve this, the area's environmental assets will be protected and supported in tandem with the promotion of economic activity.'

Q3.2 Do the objectives set out above cover the key requirements for the area?
No. We recommend the fourth bullet is changed to:
'Ensuring a high quality environment for residents, whether expressed through noise pollution management, protection of green space, or protection and enhancement of the built heritage'.

Q3.3 Are there any other additional objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?
The protection of the cultural heritage and management of impacts could be expressed as a separate objective.

4. Issues and Options

Q4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? Are there priority areas?
The nature and level of enhancements will depend on the development option selected. As air transport movements increase the noise impacts are likely to increase. It is important that measures are taken to ensure that Rochford Conservation Area, and other heritage assets, do not become degraded as a result. Mitigation of noise and visual impacts should be carried out where possible. However, care should be taken to ensure that any noise insulation schemes do not result in poorly designed double glazing or window replacements. The designated historic assets of the JAAP and the surrounding area should be priorities for enhancement.

Q4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can this be mitigated?
There is currently insufficient information on which to judge this. By virtue of its proximity to the runway, and its high significance, the church of St Laurence and All Saints is likely to be most seriously affected of all environmental assets. Mitigation measures will depend on the scale of development, in particular, whether the runway is extended, and on detailed information on the nature of the impacts under the different options. It may not be possible to mitigate the impact.
Section 4.4 fails to identify, or address, any of the cultural heritage impacts. Certain sites, including historic buildings with a community function such as churches, should be identified 'receptors' for the purposes of the assessment of noise, vibration and other impacts.

Q4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?
Areas for change should take account of the settings of designated heritage assets. Are there any opportunities to bring development away from sensitive historic buildings or sites? Archaeological evaluation should be used to inform the nature and extent of development.

5. Potential JAAP Scenarios

Q5.1 Which is your preferred scenario for the future of the Southend Airport Area?
None of the scenarios have been assessed for their impacts on the cultural heritage. Even the high growth option with the extended runway fails to identify impacts on the nearest and most sensitive historic asset â€" the grade I church of St Laurence and All Saints. This is a major omission given that the potential for serious damage is identified in the background Evidence Report [Halcrow, June 2008]. The report states:
'The presence and settings of the listed buildings within the site may be a potential constraint to future designs. The presence of Rochford Conservation Area, which abuts the site, could also be a potential constraint' [Part 1, p68, para 5.8].

For the Medium Growth [2b] and High Growth [3] scenarios the Evidence Report [part 3] states:
'Land development could impact on the setting of existing features of archaeological and cultural heritage interest e.g. the church of St Lawrence and All Saints and could also potentially damage unknown/buried features of interest' [p138]

In the circumstances English Heritage's preferred option is Scenario 1, Low Growth, but full evaluation of the environmental consequences might reveal even this is too damaging.

Draft Sustainability Appraisal

The SA scoping report provides a summary of baseline information relating to cultural heritage, and a helpful SA/SEA Framework. This is not reflected and carried through in the draft SA report.

The Scenario Assessment [Appendix 1] does not identify any specific cultural heritage assets within the JAAP area. The recommendations in section 3 do not include any reference to impacts on cultural heritage, within or outside the site. This should be reviewed and amended following consideration of further information, as requested above.

JAAP Evidence Report [Halcrow June 2008]

While we note that the report provides coverage of archaeology and cultural heritage issues [Part 1, section 5.8] we find the report inconsistent in the way that the issues are taken forward. Section 5.10, and table 5.4, summarise the main issues and constraints, but do not include any reference to cultural heritage issues. Notwithstanding this the cultural heritage issues are reported in the Environmental Appraisal of scenarios [Part 3, 11.4].

We would be pleased meet you to discuss the concerns raised in this letter, and to consider any additional information regarding the likely impacts of the different growth scenarios on the cultural heritage, and in particular St Laurence and All Saints church.

Yours sincerely




Katharine Fletcher
Regional Planner, East of England

cc Southend Borough Council

Enc: English Heritage letter dated 12 March 2003