Q4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?

* 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.

Encouragement of light aviation by lowering exorbitant landing fees and parking fees.

What will JAAP do for the GA side of aviation and its maintenance. If the airport gets bigger will it push smaller a/c out. Will it keep me in a job?!

The main problem regarding development of the airport is the impact on the road infrastructure which has not been addressed by this report. The Cherry Orchard Way was constructed to allow easy access to Southend thus relieving the Ashingdon Road and Southend Road. It was promised that no new development would be allowed along it except the business park at the Southend end, which had already had permission and had been released from the green belt back in 1985. The Brickwork site was to be returned to arable land as per conditions in the original permission for brick earth extraction.

Rochford should not be called upon to relieve Southend of their obligations to provide employment land. The report says that there is scope for intensification of employment land. This should be done before any new land is released.

Since the expansion of Stansted and London City airports, Southend airport has declined it has also lost its airspace. There is little scope for improvement any new facilities proposed do not match Stansted which at least has the road infrastructure. The proposed diverting of Eastwoodbury Lane and dualing of Cherry Orchard Way and extra access points would cause traffic problems during construction and loss of arable land.

The only realistic scenario is option 1 low growth. The other scenario will have great environmental impact of traffic, pollution and visual to the detriment of Rochford District residents.

These are the responses to the Southend Airport and Environs JAAP consultation from Leigh-on-Sea Town Council.

2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?
No

2.2 Are there any important assets missing from the assessment?
Rochford Hundred Golf Course, Rochford Tennis Club and an ancient orchard off Eastwoodbury Lane

3.1 Do you agree with the overall vision for the JAAP?
No, it doesn't include the impact that the developments at the airport would have on the wider area.

3.2 Do the objectives set out cover the key requirements from the area?
Yes, but with the following amendments (underlined):
. Creation of sustainable and high value employment and other land uses
. Maximising the economic benefits of a thriving local airport and related activity
. Ensuring appropriate improvements in sustainable transport accessibility and facilities are in place before any expansion of the airport and other areas of the JAAP
. Ensuring a high quality environment for residents of the wider area expressed through noise pollution management or protection of green space
. Maximum return on public investment through attracting inward investment but only if it is the right investment
. Efficient use of existing employment land

3.3 Are there any other objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?
Major public and private transport infrastructure improvements to protect and enhance biodiversity issues within the area covered and those outside that may be affected by the JAAP area.

4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?
1. Provide air transport and aviation related industries
2. To secure regeneration to enable it to reach its potential to function as a local regional airport (SBC Core Strategy, Objective SO11)
3. Act as a driver for the economy

4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?
Airport expansion along with economic/business improvements work best as a package. It should be consequential to, and not specifically be, the driver

4.3 What role should the JAAP play in supporting wider employment growth in the sub-region?
Low scale economic growth. Change to JAAP to act as a facilitator for both Authorities to work together for the regeneration of the area.

4.4 Is the area suitable for significant growth in employment?
No, not without significant surface transport improvements.

4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?
Yes, if high or medium airport growth options are chosen; if leisure activities and better transportation is in place

4.6 Are there additional options to consider?
No reply

4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so, how should it be revised?
No

4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? What are the priority areas?
General recreational enhancements for all the population, such as a Nature Park. To be funded out of Developers Contributions.
The Country Park should be extended to take in all land between Southend and Rochford.
Extra care and vigilance to prevent industrial waste polluting Eastwood Brook. This has been a problem in the past and probably will after expansion of the industrial area.

4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?
In respect of Leigh, actual and perceived increase in noise, pollution and traffic congestion.
Mitigation by:
. Restricting the types of aircraft used, numbers of flights and restricting night flying
. Creating a 20 year airport extension plan with improved transportation included.
. Having proper consultation with fixed base operators.

4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?
Road linkage to central Southend and to the west to be put in place before airport developments take place
Identify the catchment area targeted for airport passengers and the other component parts of the JAAP area and consider the new and improved surface transport required.
There is no conceivable answer to surface transport improvements for the maximum number of passenger numbers considered in the JAAP.
As the number of passengers increases, then consideration given to extra trains specifically for Southend Airport to and from London.

4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?
Implementation of a travel plan for airport staff and businesses on the airport.
Park and Ride schemes with shuttle buses to/from the airport.
Expensive parking fees at the airport and controlled parking in surrounding roads.
Much improved local bus services to and from all local areas.

4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?
No

4.13 Are there any areas that should be added or removed? Why?
Remove
(ii) Agricultural land north of Aviation Way Business Park and
(v) Agricultural land south of airport boundary, currently cricket pitch, agricultural land and private allotments, unless reserved for recreational purposes

5.1 Which is your preferred scenario for the future of the Southend Airport area
Option 1 - Low growth (do minimum)

5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?

5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?
Within the low growth scenario, expansion of Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul operations within area (iii) Land at end of Aviation Way

Southend Borough Council and Rochford District Council London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Development Plan Document: Initial Consultation on Issues and Options

We are writing in response to your letter received on the 30 June, seeking views on the above document.

EEDA's principal role is to improve the East of England region's economic performance. Our main concern with Development Plan Documents is therefore that they will help deliver, and provide the spatial framework for:
• sustainable economic development and regeneration in the East of England, and in particular,
• the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) A Shared Vision: the regional economic strategy for the East of England, 2004).

The RES recognises the area as a priority for regeneration and growth as it lies within the Thames Gateway Growth Area. EEDA is also a core funder of Renaissance Southend and is providing expertise and resources to develop and implement key regeneration strategies for Southend.

You should be aware that the new RES is due to be published shortly and therefore as the JAAP progresses, this new strategy will need to be taken into account.



There is a strong level of strategic support for the development of Southend Airport. The Government's Air Transport White Paper identifies the important role that smaller airports can provide in meeting the demand for air travel. In addition, it identifies the important role that such airports can play in contributing to regional economic development, and in the case of Southend specifically the white paper also promotes the development of additional capacity for business aviation.

The Regional Spatial Strategy reiterates the support in the White Paper for the growth of Southend Airport to meet local demand and to contribute to local economic development, particularly in niche markets such as business aviation, passenger routes not served by larger airports and employment uses that would benefit from an airport location. The RSS also notes the importance of ensuring that proposals for airport expansion take account of the needs of surface access provision and the shift towards more sustainable travel modes.

The RES is similarly reflective of the Government's Air Transport White Paper. Goal 6, Priority 1 in particular, supports the sustainable growth of the region's airports and the business and employment opportunities that can occur as a result. Southend is identified specifically in ensuring that the region remains attractive to businesses. The RES also seeks to ensure that airport growth is planned for in an integrated matter with regeneration strategies, the supply of high quality employment land/space and road & rail infrastructure.

EEDA therefore supports the proposed expansion of the airport as articulated through the JAAP.
By maximising the benefits of the airport location to develop further employment opportunities, the Councils will not only be meeting the aspirations of the Air Transport White Paper, but also providing a significant contribution towards the regional job growth targets. This is important as the JAAP identifies the airport as playing an important role for the sub-region in meeting the job targets as set out in the RSS given its potential attractiveness and location adjacent to the A127 corridor.

The JAAP identifies three potential growth scenarios. EEDA's view is that in supporting the growth of the airport and delivering the scale of ambition as stated, then the aspiration must be to ultimately deliver Option 3, the High Growth scenario. The use of the airport and the potential for significant new business development is currently significantly constrained by a range of issues including the facilities, the scale of the runway and access to the airport itself. In order to fully address these issues in a sustainable manner, then the critical mass of development associated with Option 3 is likely to be required. In addition, whilst Option 2b will potentially deliver similar numbers of flights, this is likely to be less deliverable without the additional runway extension that is proposed through option 3.

Whilst there is clearly significant capacity for flights and the potential for new industrial and business premises, the JAAP also identifies, that for the current businesses in the area, proximity to the airport is not usually an important factor. In the light of this, in justifying the scale of development as potentially proposed, the document needs to be much clearer on the evidence of demand for airport based businesses and indeed, wider employment opportunities in this location and how the JAAP as proposed will meet this demand through the identified options. For example, reference to the Roger Tym & Partners work carried out in support of the Regeneration Framework and the Core Strategy might be appropriate.

In planning for growth, consideration also needs to be given to potential conflicts between the different users of the airport, particularly given the aspirations to grow passenger numbers. Care must be taken to ensure that in maximising the benefits of additional passenger flights, the niche business opportunities at the airport such as the business flights and the maintenance / repair industries are not compromised. It may be that in considering distribution of space and access and egress arrangements it may be desirable to group the aviation oriented jobs in one place -possibly with a layout design and management that could in due course allow them a secure entrance.

Finally, it must be noted, of course, that the development of option 3 will potentially have environmental impacts on the local area and in particular, will require some reconsideration of green belt boundaries to the north. In the light of this, if the Councils' are to pursue a high growth scenario for the airport, then a strong case linking demand to the requirement for this green belt land will need to be made.

If you would like to discuss any of these matters in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address.

ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL & SOUTHEND-ON-SEA BOROUGH COUNCIL
LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN ISSUES & OPTIONS REPORT
REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF COLONNADE LAND LLP

This representation to the Southend Airport JAAP Issues and Options Report is submitted on behalf of Colonnade Land LLP (CLLLP). Colonnade would like to play a full and active role in the JAAP process herein and be a key stakeholder.

CLLLP has major land interests in North Southend and South Rochford. CLLLP considers that the strategic development of land to the south and east of the aerodrome would form part of a new, comprehensive long-term regeneration strategy for the area based on achieving the following objectives:

. Unlocking the potential of London Southend Airport by developing it into a freight and passenger airport that serves the needs of the Essex Thames Gateway sub-region
. Enabling London Southend Airport to develop into an accessible employment pole of sub-regional importance
. Alleviating Greater Southend's serious road infrastructure deficiencies through the provision of additional east-west road capacity and expanding and developing an integrated public transport network
. Meeting the area's long term housing and job requirements in a sustainable way that addresses issues such as affordable and family housing, accessible links to employment centres and creating a high quality environment
. Unlocking the potential of New Ranges to enable its regeneration post 2031

CLLLP has established an effective working relationship with a prospective purchaser of the Airport. The bidder, which must remain confidential at this time due to the ongoing tender proves, have mutually shared views regarding the future of the airport and the wider area. CLLLP worked with the bidder in the preparation of their bid for the airport and if the bid is successful, the relationship will be strengthened further with CLLLP asset managing the landside property portfolio of the airport and advising and representing on the forward planning of the airport and associated strategic planning issues. Both parties would like to work with Rochford District Council and Southend Borough Council towards a long term (2031) strategy that achieves the objectives listed above. Whilst it is recognised that this strategy is to be developed over the next few years through the East of England Plan Review process and that the AAP only looks ahead as far as 2021, it is imperative that the Joint AAP provides a thorough analysis of the relevant policy context to address infrastructure, employment and aviation issues in a comprehensive, holistic and long term way. The comments below are provided to the questions and issues raised in the document and for ease of reference, presented in the same order in which they appear in the consultation document.

a) Assets, Opportunities and Constraints

Q2.1 and Q2.2

The opportunity to provide a new direct link road from the A127 to the airport site and beyond has not been identified. Peter Brett Associates, on behalf of CLLLP, have established that a route exists which would provide new highway infrastructure from the A127 (Prince Avenue) running east through to Rochford Road. The new road would require the demolition of a nominal number of existing properties, some of which are already under the ownership of CLLLP. Provision of this new infrastructure would enable Eastwoodbury Lane to be permanently closed to facilitate a runway extension whilst creating land parcels that could be suitable for development as new employment/business sites. Please refer to the attached diagram.

b) The JAAP Vision

3.1 Do you agree with the Vision?

CLLLP consider the Vision for London Southend Airport to be inadequate and unfit for purpose. Whilst the reference to the sub-regional importance of the airport as an employment driver is supported, CLLLP would like to see the Vision modified so that it highlights a commitment to developing the Airport into a small regional airport to serve the Essex Thames Gateway sub-region and a Vision that specifically highlights the need to provide first class infrastructure links for residents and workers. It is considered that the Vision as presented fails to identify the full range of actions required for Southend Airport to function as a successful airport, and fails to address the need to transform the transport infrastructure in the area, which is already at capacity and urgently needs to be rectified.

3.2 & 3.3 Do the objectives set out the key requirements and are there any other additional objectives that would help to guide the selection of the preferred option?

The outlined objectives are largely supported. However, the objectives fail to highlight the fundamental need to provide better accessibility to the regional highway network. An AAP must identify this as a key objective because the airport will not develop as either a passenger or freight airport without highway improvements and nor will the AAP area be accessible to Essex Thames Gateway residents and workers. The Vision and listed Objectives suggest that the road access is adequate to serve a thriving airport and a major employment centre. This is not the case and amendments are required. The airport cannot grow to the scale outlined in the Airport Masterplan with improvements to sustainable transport access alone due to capacity issues. The Airport's Business Plan states that 25% of passengers would travel by train and 75% by road.

c) Issues and Options

4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?

London Southend Airport will develop into a successful, small regional airport and a major employment centre in the future if its infrastructure requirements are met and in this regard, the commentary provided under Option iii) "Airport growth: extended runway and new facilities" encapsulates what could be achieved within a relatively short period of time. This is the only way that CLLLP envisage that the airport can be successfully developed as a passenger airport and employment centre. However, it must be emphasised that it will also require significant improvements to the local and regional road network and significant other infrastructure investment.

4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?

The airport must be developed to an appropriate level to drive and support the local economy this is evident from the text laid out in the consultation document. It is clear from the text that the airport will not develop as a passenger airport without a runway extension and commensurate investment in other infrastructure.

4.3 - What role should JAAP play in supporting employment growth in the sub-region?

London Southend Airport is one of two new employment growth poles in Essex Thames Gateway (the other being London Gateway). Given the East of England jobs target for the sub-region (55,000 net new jobs between 2001 and 2021), it is absolutely critical that both new employment centres maximise employment growth as far as possible. In this regard, the JAAP should be concerned with both direct and indirect airport and non-airport related growth. The JAAP should seek to maximise job growth at the airport, as well as the economic regeneration of Southend and the sub-region as a whole.

4.4 Is the area appropriate for significant growth in employment?

Inadequate road transport infrastructure and poor accessibility are the sole issues that weaken the attractiveness of Southend Airport as an employment destination and they must be resolved. From a strategic, geographic and spatial perspective, only if the transport infrastructure (both highway and public transport networks) can be improved, can the airport represent a sustainable and viable long term employment destination.

4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?

The area will be attractive to investors if high quality facilities are created and crucial links to the primary highway network provided.

4.6 Are there additional options to consider?

Based on our experience, we believe that a new link road from the airport site to the A127 (as indicated on the attached plans) would facilitate the creation of new employment opportunities that would be attractive to investors. Value could be transferred from such development via mechanisms such as the Community Infrastructure Levy or a toll road to help fund the new road link.

4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so, how should it be revised?

CLLLP consider that the Green Belt does need to be revised and this revision should consider Green Belt land beyond the JAAP area as well as land within it. The airport itself should be removed from the Green Belt.

4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?

The JAAP fails to recognise the necessity of a comprehensive transport strategy and programme of transport improvements to enable development at the scale envisaged by the East of England Plan and Southend Core Strategy. New and additional transport capacity will be required to offset the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, to improve transport links to the rest of the sub-region, and to enable the core airport business to grow. The first step would be to secure (public or/and private) funding for a comprehensive transport study including the construction of a sub-regional transport model upon which to base future investment.

New highway infrastructure will need to dovetail with a comprehensive public transport strategy which must be geared around integrating the existing public transport systems that connect different parts of the sub-region to one another. The creation of multi-modal interchanges in Southend, Rochford and the JAAP area will be critical to achieving an integrated and attractive public transport network. Appendix 2 to this representation contains a conceptual map which identifies the potential for an enhanced and expanded network for 2030 based on the introduction of South Essex Rapid Transit (SERT) and enhanced connectivity to prospective future development areas.

4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?

It is impractical to assume that the majority of people will use only rail based public transport to access the airport and this is reflected in the Airport's Business Plan which is based on an aspirational modal split of 25% of passengers travelling by rail and 75% travelling by road. Large parts of the sub-region cannot easily access the airport by rail and will look to travel to it using a private car, taxi or bus. In this regard, there will inevitably be an increase in traffic movements to the JAAP area over the next decade. The challenge for the future airport operator, with the assistance of the Councils and third party landowners, will be to improve the quality of all forms of public transport so that those people that have the opportunity to travel using public transport choose that option ahead of the private car.

A high level of modal split could be achieved at Southend compared to other regional airports of a similar scale given the existing public transport systems in place and the scope which exists to improve the network further. Multi-modal interchanges need to be developed to facilitate ease of movement between transport modes and thought needs to be given to how the airport fits within the wider public transport strategy for Greater Southend.

4.12 and 4.13

The areas for change are supported.

d) Potential JAAP Scenarios

5.1 Which is your preferred scenario for the future of the Southend Airport Area?

Scenario 3 High Growth is the preferred scenario of CLLLP. In this regard, it achieves the best strategic fit, it conforms to Development Plan policy and will make a major contribution to the growth and vibrancy of both the local and the sub-regional economy in the short, medium and long term. The other scenarios arguably do not conform to Development Plan policy and should be discounted. This is reflected in the strategic fit tables produced in the Issues and Options Document.

5.2 How could your preferred option be further enhanced?

The possible route for Eastwoodbury Lane replacement could be modified to reflect the route shown in the attached plans. This would contribute to the provision of an essential link in the sub-regional road network with the potential for the road to cross the railway line and open up East Southend to the sub-region's primary highway network. This would be of great benefit to existing businesses in the east of Southend and greatly assist the long term regeneration of New Ranges. Critically, it would reduce the pressure on the road network within the town and create badly needed additional road capacity. It is imperative that a demand management approach is implemented for both the existing and additional road network to bring about tangible improvements to traffic congestion in the area.

The new route would also create land parcels that could assist in the creation of a park and ride multi-modal interchange serving both Rochford and Southend town centres in addition to the airport, as well as new sites for business development.

e) Summary and Conclusions

CLLLP has formed a strategic partnership with a prospective purchaser of the airport. Colonnade already has substantial land interests in Southend that could extend to the airport itself if their partner's bid is successful. Colonnade's bidding partner considers that the airport provides a good strategic fit with its other businesses in the Thames Gateway and that with substantial investment in both on-site and off-site infrastructure, the airport can be sustainably developed into a successful regional airport and a new economic pole of sub-regional significance. CLLLP commissioned Peter Brett Associates (PBA) to consider the potential of a relief road that could provide a direct link from the A127 to the airport site and PBA are satisfied that this is technically possible. It would entail only nominal demolition of properties, some of which CLLLP already own. This presents a long term solution to the highway infrastructure problems that blight the area and should therefore be incorporated into the High Growth scenario, which CLLLP consider to be the only possible option for the JAAP.

CLLLP look forward to playing a full and active role in the development of the JAAP and would be delighted to explain their proposals further with both Councils and other key stakeholders.

On behalf of several Clients in Aviation Way, we would like to submit the following representations on the JAAP Issues and Options Report as follows;



Q2.1 Yes



Q3.2 Raising the profile of existing businesses within the study area could be included here. Service and leisure premises such as the Essex County Hotel and the Athenaeum Club are already in place and would complement any expansion to and investment made at the airport.



Q4.1 To increase business opportunities in the area and to provide easier access to and from Southend for commercial visitors and tourists.



Q4.2 The extension of the runway would exploit the potential of the airport to maximum effect and result in more visitors and increased financial benefit to the area.



Q4.3 The JAAP should support high scale employment growth within the study area. With the investment proposed in Scenario 3 the airport and surrounding area would be easily accessible. Should growth here affect other less well appointed and poorly located employment areas in the Borough, these could be released for alternative uses as suggested in para 4.3ii.



Q4.5 Yes with the infrastructure and improvements in place.



Q4.8 The green areas that surround the JAAP study area ie the green belt buffer to the north and Cherry Orchard Park to the west should be be enhanced and maintained to provide relief from the intensification of business uses within the area.



Q4.10 We consider the priority to be the railway station which will bring many businesses in the area within walking distance of it.



Q4.11 See above plus the implementation of transport plans by new businesses.



Q4.12 Yes



Q5 We prefer Scenario 3, which we see as a long term investment in the area which will promote growth.



Kind Regards

Clare West, on behalf of Clients

Dedman Planning & Regeneration Ltd

Response to L S A & Environs Issues & Options Report

By
Murray Foster
(local involvements include Chair of Southend Business & Tourism Partnership and Director of Essex Chambers of Commerce)


Q2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?

Yes, fully reported and understood

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

No, none

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

Yes

Q3.2 Do the objectives set out above cover the key requirements from the area?

Yes

Q3.3 Are there any other additional objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?

Yes â€" the need for higher level of skilled jobs and more highly remunerated employment within south east Essex creating less dependency on London (city) jobs and retaining home grown talent

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

LSA has to be allowed to develop to become a regional airport for internal UK and west and southern European flights. This will then enable the sustainability and expansion of aero maintenance and servicing and other associated sectors capable of providing higher skilled jobs. It will also act as an external sign poster for south east Essex on UK and European map and act as a catalyst for further improving the external image of south east Essex and encouraging both potential inward investing businesses, visitors and new employees and new residents to view this area as the place to be

Q4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?

To be fully effective it has to become a regional airport coupled with sustaining/ expanding aero maintenance sector thereby stimulating supply chain and cluster sector business development including creative industries, leisure and tourism

Q4.3 What role should the JAAP play in supporting wider employment growth in the sub-region?

It has to be predicated on maximising the benefits of having a regional airport â€" Chelmsford, Basildon, Thurrock, Colchester (to mention a few) do not have an airport â€" it is our USP including a 7 mile coastline â€" use it or loose it. Southend/ Rochford have so few sites suitable for employment growth but it will not maximise LSA's site potential by letting it exist with present level of low level of flight activity, (indeed it would whither away and cease to exist) and rely on industrial estate expansion solely, which would not be forthcoming without the USP of an active regional airport. It would just be perceived as another industrial estate at an end of the line location.

Q4.4 Is the area appropriate for significant growth in employment?

Definitely, yes for reasons stated above and rail connectivity that will be integrally linked to the airport. However local road improvements need to be in place to support sustainability of such growth

Q4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?

Yes provided that road and rail improvements are delivered and appropriate inward investment marketing is undertaken

Q4.6 Are there additional options to consider?

None

Q4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so how should it be revised?

Yes, there should be realignment to maximise the usage of land for employment purposes and also importantly for open spaces

Q4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? What are the priority areas?

The opportunity should be taken to create better quality open spaces in more accessible locations embracing Green Grid and Parklands ambitions

Q4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?

Increasing pressure on transport networks and therefore necessary to maximise usage of rail for air passengers/ employees and improve local road infrastructure. Also need to restrict night time flight activity to minimise any potential noise level impact on local residents

Q4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?

Maximise usage of rail and improve quality of local road linkages and bus services


Q4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?

By encouraging employers located within JAAP area to incentivise/ encourage employees to car share, use public transport, cycle

Q4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?

Yes

Q4.13 Are there any areas that should be added or removed? Why?

None

Q5.1 Which is your preferred Scenario for the future of the Southend Airport area?

Scenario 3 â€" anything less will result in loosing a catalyst for developing a vibrant employment centre involving high skilled jobs plus local supply chain benefits and additionally high profile external sign poster and improved image creator for south east Essex

Q5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?

It is contingent on improvement to local road links and bus services

Q5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?

None

Dear Sir

I understand that the consultation period for Phase 1 commenced on the 24th June and finished on the 8th August and realise that I have missed the deadline but hope that my voice can still be counted.

As a resident of Rochford, I sincerely feel that the expansion of the airport will do little to improve the quality of life in our little town. I understand that there will be some job creation, but the environmental impact of this outweighs the benefits. With a 1% unemployment rate for the district of Rochford compared with an East of England average of 1.80 and 2.29 for the country, we are not exactly in an employment crisis.

I sincerely hope that the council does not buckle to pressure from external sources on this. I believe it would do nothing but reduce the quality of life for our residents.

Kind regards

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.

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.

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.

Should of happend years ago instead of London City.

Having had very little time to study the document, I make the following comments.

1. At this time of global climate threat, the endeavour should be to reduce aircraft useage in common with other sources of resource depletion and pollution. If the national strategy was to share the benefits and disbenefits fairly between all airports this would be a different scenario.

2. The whole ethos of the document seems to be to create a situation where there is a call or need for airport expansion in an artificial manner, rather than for this to arise naturally if needed.

3. Unless attention is drawn to the increased noise (and other pollution) footprint which will result from increased airport expansion, residents may be misled at this stage into believing that good will result from such proposals without realising the implications.

4. There is no guarantee that providing space and buildings will result in creased trade and employment - the 'seedbed' initiatives which have taken place have not a conspicuous success in this regard.

5. In particular, the document suggests that provision of office accommodation will be attractive, but there are already offices within easy reach of the airport which are being converted to residential use due to lack of demand.

It is appreciated that there is pressure upon local authorities to develop coming from government via the "Thames Gateway" which, in itself is flawed, creating an increase in the population of an already overcrowded area of the country.

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.

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.

We write to object to the proposed expansion of the airport. The potential benefits to the town (which in our view have been deliberately exaggerated) are far outweighed by the adverse effects which such expansion will have on the amenities of the thousands of residents in the western end of the town.

There is no evidence to suggest that the additional employees will live in the area, and therefore support the local retail businesses in the town. the resulting additional road traffic will make the congestion on the local roads even worse than it is already. Many properties in Leigh-on-Sea will be blighted by the additional noise which the air traffic will create. The existing facilities at Stansted and City airports can cope adequately with the traffic.

It is the responsibility of the Council to take on board the interests of its residents, and firmly reject any proposed runway extension. Where are the Health and Safety authorities in all of this? They make some pretty foolish rulings in many cases, to allow increased air traffic over a substantial built up residential area is patent madness.

Given that airport useage for scheduled passenger services will always be runway limited, it is important that all classes of aviation continue to be supported. To help facilitate this, building within the airport boundary should be minimised. Aircraft approach tracks must be safeguarded from developments.

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.