4.2 Issue 1: The future development and role of London Southend Airport

Option (i) would be acceptable but I would say that option (ii) is the sensible solution. In my opinion option (iii) would be a step too far.

(i) Is the most appropriate action for the airport. I believe the area is not suitable for greater growth. The infrastructure required in transport and environmental issues cannot be achieved.

Can you please publish how you justify an investment in a business that is being seriously hit with increasing oil prices, with global economists not seeing a means for the oil price dropping for many years.
Passenger operators at Stanstead are stopping flights as a result.
The government, under much protest is going ahead with the 4th runway at Heathrow so from whom is the demand for flights from Southend. This should be investigated by an independant body not connected with the Aviation industry.

An independent report should be commissioned to investigate the long-term sustainability of developing the airport, otherwise how can the council and the people it represents make an informed decision?

Three potential approaches without a real definition of why?

There will be too much noise and pollution if the airport is made larger and there is already to much traffic for the surrounding roads and any increase due to the enlarging of the airport would bring gridlock in the rush hour and an intolerable amount of traffic at other times

Having taken the time to read fully the 100 page document reference the proposed joint area action plan report, I would like to put forward my points of view, I hope you will do the me the same courtesy and read the following 3 pages.

2.4 Transport & Accessibility:
Bus Services: There is a bus service (No:9), which stops at the end of he Aviation Way Business Park. Your proposed moving of Eastwoodbury Lane will mean this bus going onto the A127?!!!!!
Railway: The airport should consider a coach service to the nearest railway stations. Stansted, a much larger airport seems to be able to operate with a coach service. It has already been discussed and pointed out to the airport that commuter parking is not a feasible and safe option along Southend Road.
Eastwoodbury Lane: The word critical is used in this paragraph; this would only become critical if the airport extends the runway.

There does not appear to be any mention of the existing and proposed 'sound footprint' within the document. Please can you furnish us with the current, and increases for each scenario.

The Park & Ride is shown on the diagram but no explanation it is a Park & Ride to where and for whom?!

Solutions to any increase in traffic need to be addressed before agreement to any of the options. I cannot see any such foresight having been used in this document.

A good example of traffic problems is the RBS building, which is causing parking problems and disruption on the roads surrounding it and no serious attempt at providing adequate additional transport options.

There are plenty of industrial/shopping estates in he area, namely Airports' own shopping area, Aviation Way, Laurence, Britannia Park, Temple Farm and Purdey Industrial Estate; and the currently expanding Fossett Way estate with new football ground, hotel and shopping areas to be added. The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do they want or need to increase the numbers, again it is likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.

I think proof and financial guarantees from 2/3 fixed base operators would need to be in place before any planning applications for expansion are agreed. This is particularly relevant at this time of economic constraints, ('volatility in aviation markets'-direct quote) e.g.:
Ryanair, Easyjet cutting back NOT expanding.

I include two quotes from a national newspaper this week, the first from aviation expert Doug McVitie who predicts some airlines will go bust in the coming months as they deal with the record fuel costs and a drop in consumer spending. The second regarding British Airways axing one in 20 flights in a bid to weather the economic downturn. Involving 1000's of short haul domestic, regional and European services expected to bear the brunt of the cutbacks. 6000 flights will disappear from its winter schedule with effect from October. Is it environmentally or economically sound to encourage more emissions, bearing in mind fuel costs etc.

4.3 i) Recent evidence is inferred, but no specifics given. Same as
above, there are plenty of new developments already taking place in the area.

ii) The roads are already at maximum capacity in the area.
iii) Employment growth brings more transport problems, see ii) above.

4.2 iii) Environmental Impacts removal of any green belt impacts on the environment. ('Ensuring quality of life is maintained for residents, and sustainable transport strategies are implemented to minimise traffic impacts'-direct quote) these are just words nowhere in the document does the airport show how it will be maintaining quality of life!!

4.6 The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do
they want or need to increase the numbers, again likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.
Specific areas for change listed: you mention local recreation and amenity improvements, what are they? ix) Mentions the parkway, this has already been widely discussed and the safety issues explained, in fact there have been 3 serious accidents along Southend Road in the last 3 months, this is a narrow, dangerous stretch of road which vehicles constantly speed along resulting in regular road accidents

The new car showrooms due to start operating in the Autumn along Cherry Orchard Way, we have not yet seen what impact this will have on the road infrastructure i.e.: vehicle transporters, staff and customers.

The major redirecting of Eastwoodbury Lane to join with the RBS road exiting onto the dual carriageway, pushing all traffic onto the A127 Tesco roundabout shows lack of intelligence on whosoever devised this lunatic scenario. This is actually removing the option of avoiding the A127 for motorists and public transport.

The airport should NOT be looking for any public investment, as it cannot show any guaranteed financial returns.

('In changing the character of the area funding would be attracted to promote transport and environmental projects aimed at improving the JAAP area'-direct quote) BEFORE changing the character of the area, (not for the better in my opinion) transport and environmental projects should already have been chosen and explained with AIRPORT funding already in place, as it is the airport which wishes to make the changes.

Avionics technical advancement is consistently mentioned in the document with regard to potential noise and emission reductions, thereby not having a significant effect on the local area, but there is no proof of this.
Regardless, if with technical advancement we could also assume new aircraft being produced that can utilise the existing runway length thereby saving unnecessary expense.

The airport was purchased knowing the runway limitations and I don't see why the residents or local environment should suffer to assuage their greed.

Scenario 1: Low growth (do minimum) is the preferred option as any growth allowed will be later exploited and consistently pushed for further expansion. i.e.: the parkway which was NOT included in the original new railway station planning application but once this was agreed in principal the airport immediately tried to expand the area to include commuter parking which they admitted they would need the revenue from to help finance the station, if that was so they should have been honest in the first instance and applied for parking at the same time. This was also the case with the Shopping area at the airport where the planning application stated NO food outlets and then at a later date McDonalds was given consent to operate.

In paragraph ii, the seventh sentence (beginning 'The economic reality...') refers to the airport as a constraint. The constraint is not the airport as a whole, but the existing runway length, for two particular reasons:
• Older regional aircraft (like the BAe 146 and Avro RJ series which were specifically designed for short take off and landing) are being replaced by newer regional aircraft types (such as the Embraer 195 and the Bombardier C series) which use less fuel and are less noisy even though they are larger, but they require a longer distance to reach take off speed
• The existing landing distance for the 24 runway direction is 1399 metres while for the 06 direction it is only 1279 metres (less than London City Airport). Airline operations must assume the shorter of these two which restricts the loads that aircraft can carry when using Southend Airport.

In paragraph iii the reference to Boeing 737s may confuse as not all models of the 737 would be able to operate with economic loads from a 1799m runway. It would be better to refer to aircraft with a seating capacity of generally between 100 and 149 seats, such as the Airbus A319, smaller 737 types and the range of new aircraft by Embraer and Bombardier (C series), particularly designed for European services. There is also a reference to attracting two or three fixed base operators. As FBOs are usually related to business or general aviation operations it would be better to refer to two or three airlines which would base aircraft at the airport.

Of the options offered in the London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan,
I prefer Scenario 1 - the "Low Growth (do minimum)" option.

I strongly oppose any expansion of southend airport on the grounds of the increase in aircraft noise which will become intolerable for all those close to the airport and on the flight paths.

Environmentally this is the wrong direction to take - increasing air traffic causes pollution, increases noise levels, uses a vast quantity of fuel. Road traffic will also increase causing more pollution, noise and accidents.

There are already sufficient airports within the South East â€"Gatwick, Heathrow, Stanstead, City

Tax payers should be allowed to vote yes or no to expansion first.

There should not be an assumption that there is a requirement to develop the airport (ref the newspaper comment that the JAAP will 'pave the way for development of the airport'). The starting point should be 'what need is there to develop the airport' or even 'why do we want an airport' !

There is always a 'do nothing' option.

Just because someone wants to develop the airport does not mean that it should be and the wants of one party (ie the airport owners) have no greater weight than the wants of others (ie those impacted by development proposals).

We are not obliged to cater for the predicted demand for air travel. The sector makes a disproportionate contribution to climate change and should be included in targets for cutting emissions
There should not be an assumption that there is a requirement to develop the airport at all
Options 1, 11 and 111 will undoubtedly act as drivers for increased CO2 emissions at a time when
national, regional and local government should be acting to prevent damaging climate change.

I feel that as long as good infrastructure is in place, full expansion is much needed and would provide numerous business/employment opportunities to the area. Also, it would mean far better connection between other UK destinations and those in Europe. Saying that, there are obviously many enviornmental factors that should be carefully considered before any decision is taken, as this could far outweigh the benefits.

We are not obliged to cater for the predicted demand for air travel. The sector makes a disproportionate contribution to climate change and should be included in targets for cutting emissions
There should not be an assumption that there is a requirement to develop the airport at all
Options 1, 11 and 111 will undoubtedly act as drivers for increased CO2 emissions at a time when
national, regional and local government should be acting to prevent damaging climate change.