Q3.1 Do you agree with the overall Vision for the JAAP?

Object

Representation ID: 947

Received: 27/06/2008

Respondent: Mr B Jones

STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL EXPANSION. Do minimum or preferably no expansion.The increase in aircraft noise for us residents will become intolerable, emissions will increase. The road system cannot cope with current traffic levels. If 2m passenger movements are reached this will require about 4000 extra car journeys per day!!! Imagine the road upgrading work for the next few years that would be required. This area has a high percentage of elderly people who hardly fly. Who will the expansion benefit, people flying from outside the region and the business people and major shareholders who will make millions of pounds.

Object

Representation ID: 953

Received: 29/06/2008

Respondent: Mrs M Endsor

Further developement of this area will result in the disruption / destruction of surrounding wildlife areas and the absorbtion of what was a beautiful and historic town into a much larger urban area. Rochford and its surrounding villages contain buildings of great historic value. It is a close knit community hanging onto the vestiges of old rural life and all this will be eroded beyond recognition.

Support

Representation ID: 972

Received: 05/07/2008

Respondent: Mr Chris Taylor

Development is consistent with Government policy for The Thames Gateway and increased runway capacity in the Southeast.
The proposed runway extension would offer the opportunity for dramatically increased passenger numbers.
Environmental impact is modest given the small land-area expansion and low-noise modern aircraft.

Comment

Representation ID: 995

Received: 09/07/2008

Respondent: Mr A James

Not if it means a major increase in flights.

Comment

Representation ID: 1058

Received: 11/07/2008

Respondent: Mr K Elgar

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1081

Received: 14/07/2008

Respondent: Mr G P Nicholls

Not all of the vision

Comment

Representation ID: 1100

Received: 14/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs S R Lawrence

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1119

Received: 14/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs E Cuthbert

Yes I do.

Comment

Representation ID: 1150

Received: 14/07/2008

Respondent: D Bailey

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1178

Received: 15/07/2008

Respondent: A G Hunt

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1199

Received: 15/07/2008

Respondent: Mr M Dillon

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1214

Received: 16/07/2008

Respondent: Ms S Cryer

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1244

Received: 16/07/2008

Respondent: Mr C Cheesman

Yes

Object

Representation ID: 1289

Received: 21/07/2008

Respondent: Mr Clifford Haddy

No I disagree because of the negative impact on those that live in Rochford.

Object

Representation ID: 1305

Received: 22/07/2008

Respondent: Mr Kelvin White

I object to any expansion of the airport.

Unfortunately the piece of land is far too small for an airport and it is far too close to the population. Therefore the environmental and social impacts outweigh the positive aspects.

In addition, the transport connections would get worse not better (extra traffic on already congested roads). The new train station would just add more passengers to an already busy line.

However the park and ride scheme is a good idea and any existing 'brown sites' within the area (possibly under scenario 2a) should be developed.

Support

Representation ID: 1313

Received: 22/07/2008

Respondent: Arriva Southern Counties

We support the overall vision for the JAAP. If airport growth can be achieved, this would enable sustainable business opportunities to underpin the surrounding land assigned for business use and increase local employment opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 1391

Received: 24/07/2008

Respondent: Mr David Taylor

The airport has never been successful - why continue to flog this dead horse? Of far greater economic benefit to the whole area would be to build an outer Southend ring road using the runway to bring a road around Southend and by-pass the traffic bottle necks on the A127 - and avoid the encroachment on Priory park.

Support

Representation ID: 1448

Received: 26/07/2008

Respondent: Mr T Clark

It is important that a long term view for the whole sub-area is taken into account in a co-ordinated way, rather than piecemeal decisions made that may be in conflict with each other, or those of neighbouring councils.
The development of the airport is in line with the Thames Gateway regional development policies and aims; East of England regional policies, as well as the Government White paper of 2003 to maximise use use of existing runways/airports.

Comment

Representation ID: 1477

Received: 23/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Fricker

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1486

Received: 23/07/2008

Respondent: Mr L Burles

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1547

Received: 23/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs J Barrack

Yes from what I know which isn't a lot.

Support

Representation ID: 1565

Received: 30/07/2008

Respondent: Renaissance Southend

Yes, RSL is in agreement the overall Vision for the airport and its environs. The Report sets out clearly the shared Vision of all stakeholders and is well presented.

Comment

Representation ID: 1598

Received: 28/07/2008

Respondent: Mr & Mrs M Sorrell

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1614

Received: 29/07/2008

Respondent: Katy Woolcott

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1637

Received: 29/07/2008

Respondent: Amy Such

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1650

Received: 29/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs P Major

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 1662

Received: 29/07/2008

Respondent: Mrs C Borgartz

Yes

Object

Representation ID: 1681

Received: 31/07/2008

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

I agree with Mr Kelvin White's comments which make a lot of common sense.

Object

Representation ID: 1735

Received: 03/08/2008

Respondent: Mr Alan Kentish

No.
The vision of the JAAP assumes an increase in the size and number of aircraft using the airport.Any such increase is not acceptable in such a built-up area.
The JAAP does not seem to include any details of changes to flight paths nor any confirmation, that there no proposed changes.

Comment

Representation ID: 1801

Received: 05/08/2008

Respondent: Mr A Batchelor

I have today received the report and submit my hurried comments.
The report seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the present owners to make money. Although these schemes will be avidly agreed by locals who wish for local flights this is a temporary affect and with the inevitable rises in fares will soon revert to the usual apathy,especially after the London Olympics. With the current conditions affecting all airlines and airports any grandiose such schemes are or should be considered pie in the sky.
The schemes are of course wrapped up with promises of better communications, jobs etc. to sugar the pill of permanent disruptions to existing and important transport links, noise, loss of green belt, massive overloading of road links and perhaps a new railway station by the reports own admission more of use to London commuters.
Of personal feelings best summed up I am a wheelchair user now but in the past have been a pax from Southend and have chartered Viscounts to Paris for example. The number 9 bus is a neccessity to attend St Laurence Church and the dentist in Aviation Way and the possibility of closing Eastwoodbury Lane and not serving those two mentioned places, coupled with the detrimental effect by splitting Eastwwod in two is not to be contemplated.
My choice is schemes is for 1 or 2a.