Q4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?

Showing comments and forms 91 to 98 of 98

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2737

Received: 11/08/2008

Respondent: Mrs D J Pacey

Representation Summary:

A small but busy gateway to Europe and a G.A. overspill for the larger airports with good rail and helicopter links to London and the rest of UK.

Full text:

We need to see rail connections and better facilities in place in time for the 2012 Olympics at Southend Airport - obviously this woudl only generate substantial revenue if combined with additional runway length.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2748

Received: 11/08/2008

Respondent: Mr and Mrs A T Clark

Representation Summary:

No comment.

Full text:

Apologies for late response and hand written reply.

To make things easier to read I have listed my answers on the following pages 1 to 4.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2775

Received: 11/08/2008

Respondent: T J Bliss

Representation Summary:

Finally I appreciate the opportunity to comment in what I believe is a necessary facility to the communities of Rochford, Southend and surrounding areas.

Full text:

Re: Planning Policy Document, London Southend Airport JAAP

The main Question that I would like to answer is Q5.3. I think that Scenario 1 should include the Runway Extension. My contention for this is that this would allow for fully laden Aircraft such as Boeing 737 Type to take off and land, therefore encouraging Operators of this type of Aircraft to use Southend Airport, and would allow the Airport and it's Environs to develop naturally, in order to keep pace with the increased usage. I futher think that diverting Eastwoodbury Lane to be unnecessary, as the existing road could be channelled under the Runway Extension as applied on other Airport sites.

I generally agree with Q3.1, although I believe that some of the proposals go beyond what is required for, what is essentially a small Airport.

Regarding Q4.2, I believe that, as I have already stated the natural progression from extending the Runway will drive the local economy forward, and that Facilities already exist to support the Airport. eg Engineering, Supplies etc.

Q4.4 Employment will always expand when opportunities are in place.

Q4.5 Investors will usually be attracted where opportunities exist.

Q4.7 I do not believe that the Green Belt should be revissed, as I am sure that Brownfield Sites already exist.

Q4.10 Improvement of Rail facilities, also Local bus services, possible change to electric traction to reduce air pollution.

Q4.11 I do not think that this is possible in the short term, due to the shift working usually expected at this type of Employer.

Finally I appreciate the opportunity to comment in what I believe is a necessary facility to the communities of Rochford, Southend and surrounding areas.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2781

Received: 12/08/2008

Respondent: Mr G Meecham

Representation Summary:

Major short haul business and minor long haul

Full text:

Should of happend years ago instead of London City.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2900

Received: 13/08/2008

Respondent: Mrs F Bramble

Representation Summary:

We see the role of Southend Airport as a regional airport using its current runway (1,610 metres) as per the "Airport Masterplan 2005" which assumes no further changes in the runway configuration (Southend Airport Information Sheet 8, A Future for Southend Airport Serving The Thames Gateway and Meeting Local Demand") and using the range and type of aircraft that already use the airport.

The 737's would, therefore, only continue to fly in and out for maintenance and repair and would not be passenger carrying. Being on the flight path we already have a lot of experience of this type of aircraft; we can smell the fuel, we cannot hear the television and the windows vibrate; the prospect of them flying commercially in and out every 15-20 minutes would destroy our quality of life. Businesses who charter aircraft for their staff are going to be interested in using smaller, rather than 737 size aircraft, and the same would presumably apply to any Domestic flights.

As regards the potential role of the airport for the 2012 Olympics, I cannot envisage this being more than very short-lived and just a point of entry into the UK; participants; spectators etc would be taken up to London either by train or coach and not spend any time or money in Southend itself. However there would no doubt be a daily increase in flights during this time which would again impact on those directly under the flight path.

The airport is currently open 24/7. We are subjected now to flights in and out during "unsocial hours" for private aircraft. How long will it be before we are having night flights out of Southend to disturb our night's sleep. It is well known that night flights are a cheaper option! Information sheet 8 referred to above states that "passenger flights would be permitted to operate between the hours of 06.30 and 23.00 and that they are limited before 07.00, and that no changes to flight paths and aircraft routings are necessary or proposed". We now know that is not true.

Full text:

Thank you for sending me a copy of the above document. I regret I have not been able to give the amount of consideration to it that I would have liked but, as you know, I only became aware of its existence as the result of the item in last Friday's (1st August) issue of the Southend Standard.

My comments relate directly to the list of questions in its Appendix A and are from the standpoint of a resident whose quality of life hinges on the outcome of the Council's deliberations. I am frankly surprised and not a little disappointed that residents like ourselves have yet to hear anything from the Council itself on the matter.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 2943

Received: 13/08/2008

Respondent: Watson Temple

Representation Summary:

As a catalyst for regeneration of the area within the JAAP.

Full text:

Further to my letter of the 1st July, I have now had an opportunity of discussing with my clients, Ipeco Holdings Limited, the Issues & Options report prepared by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Rochford District Council in connection with the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP), and as one of the largest employers within the area under consideration I have been asked to make the following representations on their behalf.

By way of background information, Ipeco is a family owned private limited company established 47 years ago and is firmly positioned in the aero space/defence industry as designers and manufacturers of innovative products. The company employ 600 people, 500 of which are located in Southend, 50% live within the Borough and a further 30% live within Rochford and Castle Point. The company has been the sole supplier to Boeing of Flight deck seating for the last 20 years and have now been awarded a contract for the new 787 aircraft through to 2021. Apart from providing other aircraft manufacturers with a similar product, they also provide cabin attendant and executive passenger seating together with galley equipment and bespoke internal refurbishment for private executive aircraft. Other trading companies with the Group produce machine components, composites and defence electronics. The core business operates from five buildings in Aviation Way comprising over 200,000 sq ft of manufacturing space with an additional site in Shoeburyness plus two elsewhere in the UK and two sites in the USA, 75% of sales are exports.

The present core business operates from the five individual buildings in Aviation Way that have been acquired piecemeal over the years, some of which are now aging and the split locations inevitably increases production costs. Therefore the creation of further employment related land within immediate proximity to Ipeco's existing operation provides the company with an opportunity to consider regeneration close to their present location, and within this context Ipeco has increased its workforce since 2006 and developed their own employment base with an in-house training centre accommodating over 30 apprentices on a four year scheme.

With regard to the Issues & Options report, the company feels there is very little merit in pursuing Scenario 1, Low Growth as this appears unlikely to provide any benefits to those businesses already existing within Aviation Way, apart from creation of a limited amount of additional light industrial floor space and the correspondingly small increase in employment. This scenario basically fails to meet the policy aspirations set out for the JAAP in terms of regeneration and potential growth in employment.

Scenario 2(a), Medium Growth does introduce a new business park facility with the provision of improved access from Cherry Orchard Way and a small residential development on the former brickworks, but this proposal is limited in its objectives and provides little enhancement over and above the low growth scenario and is unlikely to fulfil the longer term requirements.

Scenario 2(b), Medium Growth envisages London Southend Airport becoming a driver of the sub regional economy by increasing passenger capacity together with relocation of the terminal buildings and, more importantly, a direct railway connection to London. However, the employment related land outside the Airport perimeter is no greater than Scenario 2(a) and therefore any encouragement of new business would be limited. This appears inconsistent with Southend Airport providing the catalyst for the wider development of the area within the JAAP.

Scenario 3, High Growth, provides the opportunity of improving the existing business area which is dated and of mixed use together with the potential of significantly increasing employment levels on the back of the proposals for upgrading the Airport, and would appear to be more consistent with the policy under the Regional Spatial Strategy (East of England). Scenario 3 would also provide an opportunity of meeting future targets for Rochford and Southend so far as employment is concerned, in addition to which it will sustain the existing employment base. In the opinion of our clients a comprehensive scheme envisaged by Scenario 3 provides a basis to achieve the objectives set out in the JAAP apart from which the land is located on the north west side of the town with immediate access to the A127 Southend Arterial Road. This is likely to prove far more attractive to potential businesses than the existing industrial/business areas east of the town where the infrastructure is inadequate.

We have briefly referred to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal in support of the options referred to under the Joint Area Action Plan which we understand forms part of the planning process, but we have no specific comments or observations in response at this point in time other than to say the positive outcome of economic growth under Scenario 3 appears to outweigh the negative considerations which are primarily environmental, a number of which can be addressed by careful planning of future development of the land within the JAAP.

We understand further consultation will take place once a draft plan has been published prior to the submission of the JAAP to the Secretary of State, who will then initiate a Public Inquiry to be held in front of a Planning Inspector.

In the meantime if we can be of any further assistance in connection with these representations submitted on behalf of Ipeco Holdings Limited, then we shall be pleased to hear from you accordingly.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 3132

Received: 18/08/2008

Respondent: RSPB East of England Office

Representation Summary:

No comment

Full text:

Thank you for consulting the RSPB on the proposed second runway at London Southend Airport.

We have considered the information provided in the Joint Area Action Plan Issues and Options Report, and having reviewed this information, we have serious concerns regarding the Issues and Options Report. Our concerns are based on the grounds that the expansion of Southend Airport would increase the capacity of the airport significantly, increase air transport movements and lead to an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which have been shown to contribute to climate change that threatens biodiversity nationally and internationally.

RSPB policy on increasing air travel/transport

The RSPB have serious concerns about the current forecasts for future growth in air travel. Our policy on airports has been formulated after long and deliberate thought and has been informed by independent research we have commissioned to help us understand the way the aviation business operates today and is likely to operate in future. We are in no doubt that set against the current level of airport provision in the South East of England, the economic and social value of further expansion in aviation is far outweighed by its economic, social and environmental costs. Aviation is an increasing contributor to climate change through the emission of "greenhouse gases2 and can pollute locally.

Climate change is now recognised as the single greatest long term threat to the world's biodiversity. It also brings enormous implications for people and humanity worldwide and the ability to which mankind is able to act to limit climate change is likely to be of increasing impact. Addressing the causes of climate change through mitigation (ie greenhouse pollution reduction) measures would, if successful, provide the most significant contribution to addressing the impact of climate change on biodiversity, both in the UK and globally.

Consequently, the RSPB does not want to see unrestricted growth in airport capacity, as we believe there would be unacceptable effects on the environment. Our policy is thus one of questioning the need for expansion of existing or creation of new airports, of asking government to recognise air travel has serious environmental consequences, and to seek and promote ways government can manage the demand for air travel.

In the aviation Green Paper, the Government expressed its intention to adopt a sustainable aviation policy. Environmental NGOs, including the RSPB argued that this should be delivered by constraining further demand through a basket of measures aimed at reflecting the true cost of aviation to the consumer. In the event, Government rejected this approach; the White Paper gives the green light to projects that meet unconstrained demand estimates to 2030. In its place, Government announced its intention to offset increased emissions through an emissions trading scheme. The RSPB has serious reservations about this approach, as the scheme is not in place before increases in capacity, such as at Southend, are being initiated. The Government's failure to adopt any significant measures to manage demand and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the aviation sector, now threatens to undermine its whole approach to containing climate change.

If you require any further information regarding the RSPB's views on this proposal or our policies on aviation and climate change, please do contact us.

Comment

London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Representation ID: 3159

Received: 19/08/2008

Respondent: Mr B Stone

Representation Summary:

Driver for local and regional economy