Q2.2 Are there any important assets or issues missing from the assessment?

There are two points I have noticed that have not been mentioned so far. 1) Night Flights - I believe these should be eliminated completely. I believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be stopped. 2) The proximity of the existing railway line to the runway - If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train was present at this point it does not bare thinking about.

There would appear not to have been any consideration of a possible runway extension to the north-east, ie: over the railway and Rochford Road. As this option would not have an adverse affect to the south-west of the airport, why has this not been considered under JAAP?
Is the cost and disruption of putting railway and road in tunnels far too high, or just not physically acheivable? There would need to be several domestic residences purchased for this, but the opportunity could perhaps be taken to upgrade the Rochford Road to dual carriageway for some of the way?

Dear Sir

Proposed Expansion of Southend Airport

In response to your letter of July 9th I have the following observations to make regarding the above. These are the reasons I am against the expansion.

1. Noise - Somebody, I don't know who, stated in the local paper that no increase in noise level would be experienced. This is arrant nonsense. Having worked for some time in close proximity to Heathrow I can vouch for the fact that a modern jet airliner generates noise on take-off that is mind numbing. With all doors and windows closed normal conversation is impossible, not to mention the vibration created. No account appears to have been taken of the massive increase in number of flights.

I was involved in contracts at nearby Brentford and Stanwell which include treble glazing and the application of external sound insulating material to the walls of houses affected. All to no avail.

2. Pollution - The same person also stated that no increase in pollution would occur. Once again drawing on my experience at Heathrow and from conversations with people who lived here when more long distance flights took place this is totally incorrect and once again the increase in the number of flights is not considered.

3. Danger - All areas surrounding the airport are densely built up. In addition to which we now have the Tesco and RBS buildings right in the flight path.

This does not apply to Stansted, Gatwick or even Heathrow which have large open tracts of land around them.

4. Alternative Airports - When the Maplin project was first mooted many years ago this was eventually discarded on various grounds, one of which was the interference with the environment of some rare sea birds, none of which I have ever seen. Other reasons were the difficulty of improving the infrastructure and transport links.

Maplin, of course was by far the best choice, having none of the problems mentioned above. This lesson can be reinforced studying Nice airport in the south of France, where the planes take off and land over the sea.

Instead the decision was made to upgrade Stansted, which was a simple grass strip when I visited it in 1955, and the Maplin project cancelled for ever.

Gatwick and Stansted are less than an hours' drive from this area and as far as I am concerned they dispense with the need for another major airport serving London.

4. Diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane - Presumably this would be via Rochford. Traffic through this town would be increased enormously at the same time depriving commuters of an alternative to the grossly overused A127, laid down in 1933 and hardly modified since. Therefore far more traffic would be generated with no plans to improve the totally inadequate road network, indeed the existing system would be downgraded by this diversion.

5. New Railway Station - Why do we need a new Railway Station when Rochford is less than a mile from the airport? Shuttle buses could be laid on to ferry passengers to and from the Terminal.

6. S.T.O.L. - Occassionally I see this type of aircraft taking off from Southend Airport. They are much quieter than the large jets and of course do not require an extended runway. These have been used with great success at the London City Airport for many years. Why not increase the use of S.T.O.L. aircraft?

7. Devaluation of surrounding properties - This will occur if the expansion takes place for the reasons given above.

I do not have a computer. I am sorry I have tried to answer the questions but feel I haven't got all the information! Haven't been much help. Felt the need to complete as you sent a stamped addressed envelope. Sincere apologies.

The assessment of the very comprehensive and all assets and issues are fully covered in the Report.

A key issue to be considered is the relationship of this potential development to the existing strategic highway infrastrucyure in South East Essex.

No, based on information represented

Thank you for sending us JAAP Issues & Options Report which we have now read and understood.

There seems to be no mention of anticipated night flight numbers which even at the moment disturb our sleep.

Our preferred scenario for the future of Southend Airport would be 'low growth'. The environmental impact on the area would spoil the area.

The green belt areas are places for people to relax and enjoy the countryside which is not possible with noisy aircraft over head and increased air pollution.

When world leaders are meeting to try to reduce carbon emissions why are we in this area trying to increase them?

Yes - the true environmental impact on residents, danger, noise, pollution and night flights.
A large plane taking off will wake you up, stop conversation mid sentance, drown out the TV in your sitting room and set off car alarms.

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.

If not missing, environmental and infrastructure factors affecting the very large established residential areas around the airport - which represent overriding concerns in any development decision - are not given their proper emphasis.

The JAAP should have explained how much land will be lost in Essex (using the UK Climate Impacts programme models) if government supports activities that result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
It would also be helpful for residents to reach a more informed view if that were permitted to see the worse predictions provided by NASA Goddard Space Studies Institure (5 feet sea level rise by 2100). The loss of the CtoC line and other crucial assets need to be explained to all.

The ancient orchard on Eastwoodbury Lane, just SE of south end of runway has been carefully restored and is proving a valuable resource to many sections of the community in many ways, both practically and mentally. Its peace and wellbeing should not be jeopardised nor should it be isolated from other green areas

Public perception may target the large commercial operators as noise and frequency concern some. However the airport has the potential to be a market leader in small (transatlantic capable) business aircraft and services which bring bespoke services and prestigous passengers and aircraft. This also relies on the runway extension.

You have my full support. Please do not let blinkered people stop the needed expansion and the much needed regeneration of this has-been town!

The website was difficult to access and badly presented as a public consultation this is a shame as it does not give the public a clear view of what the options are. It seems clear to me that the decision to expand the airport has already been taken without proper considerations of the impact on the community or the environment.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.