Q4.4 Is the area appropriate for significant growth in employment?
Object
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 1973
Received: 06/08/2008
Respondent: Mrs Eleanor King
No. The numbers of people travelling to work at the airport will make the overcrowded roads into and out of the area even worse.
Will local people have the skills for these new jobs, or will more people have to move in? There is not enough housing for new employees to move in to the area.
The noise and air pollution from the roads and the airport itself will be significant in what is already a very densely populated urban area.
No. The numbers of people travelling to work at the airport will make the overcrowded roads into and out of the area even worse.
Will local people have the skills for these new jobs, or will more people have to move in? There is not enough housing for new employees to move in to the area.
The noise and air pollution from the roads and the airport itself will be significant in what is already a very densely populated urban area.
Support
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 1981
Received: 07/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Stephen Joel
Absolutely
Absolutely
Support
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2011
Received: 07/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey
yes
yes
Object
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2056
Received: 07/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Brian Whistler
No, the site is far too constricted and the traffic congestion would be horrendous. The proposed resiting of Eastwoodbury Lane would cause major congestion in the Nestuda Way vicinity.
Agree with Mrs King 1973.
No, the site is far too constricted and the traffic congestion would be horrendous. The proposed resiting of Eastwoodbury Lane would cause major congestion in the Nestuda Way vicinity.
Agree with Mrs King 1973.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2069
Received: 04/08/2008
Respondent: Environment Agency
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.
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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2117
Received: 07/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Jon Fuller
The JAAP should support the manufacture of renewable energy products like ground source heat pumps and solar water heaters - not aviation.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created in the renewables sector, given proper support. Southend and Rochford should not let this opportunity slip through our fingers.
The JAAP should support the manufacture of renewable energy products like ground source heat pumps and solar water heaters - not aviation.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs can be created in the renewables sector, given proper support. Southend and Rochford should not let this opportunity slip through our fingers.
Object
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2144
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Kamil Pachalko
Due to peak oil air travel won't grow. It is/will be actually declining and airlines are reporting losses already so expanding the airport will lead to building empty facilities which won't create employment because nobody will use it.
Due to peak oil air travel won't grow. It is/will be actually declining and airlines are reporting losses already so expanding the airport will lead to building empty facilities which won't create employment because nobody will use it.
Support
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2174
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES
Yes,particularly with additional acreage.
Those who do not believe so, but at the same time talk of the site being turned over to housing and other types of employment are deluding themselves.
The airport site is predominately a large open green area, not so if it were to close.
Yes,particularly with additional acreage.
Those who do not believe so, but at the same time talk of the site being turned over to housing and other types of employment are deluding themselves.
The airport site is predominately a large open green area, not so if it were to close.
Object
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2182
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Mrs Vivien Byczynski
No the area cannot accommodate significant employment growth unless the fundemental issue of adequate road access into South Essex is addressed by an outer bypass. The Airport Site, and indeed Southend itself suffers from serious congestion.
No the area cannot accommodate significant employment growth unless the fundemental issue of adequate road access into South Essex is addressed by an outer bypass. The Airport Site, and indeed Southend itself suffers from serious congestion.
Object
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2246
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Pat Holden
not unless surface transport is improved vastly, and residents' environment is protected - see previous comments
not unless surface transport is improved vastly, and residents' environment is protected - see previous comments
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2273
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: Mr K Meikle
Yes. Southend's Victoria Avenue is an example of how business has relocated away.
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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2295
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Carl Hudson
Yes
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2327
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: A Pratt
Yes
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2339
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: Mr M P Guilfoyle
Yes
With more flights the greater economic prosperity to the area.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2355
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: Mr Matthew White
Yes. Must employment is taken outside of the town (eg London)
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!
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2382
Received: 06/08/2008
Respondent: Mr W Hill
No
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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2397
Received: 06/08/2008
Respondent: Mr A G Prosser
Yes
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2473
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Mr C Sargent
No
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2492
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: P T Wood
No
Encouragement of light aviation by lowering exorbitant landing fees and parking fees.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2512
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: R W Harris
No
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2535
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Weir
Lack road infrastructure
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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2556
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Owner/ Occupier
Yes
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2592
Received: 06/08/2008
Respondent: Leigh Town Council
No, not without significant surface transport improvements.
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
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2624
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC
Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd
Q4.4 â€" Suitability for growth â€" the area offers the potential to deliver a highly sustainable location for employment growth, alongside a clear strategy for infrastructure enhancements
London Southend Airport JAAP Issues and Options Report Representation on behalf of Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC
We are writing on behalf of our clients, Cherry Orchard Homes and Villages PLC, to respond to the recently published draft Joint Area Action Plan for London Southend Airport. Our clients have an interest in the Cherry Orchard brickwork site.
Our clients are supportive of the proposals for growth set out in Scenarios 2a, 2b and 3, and in particular Scenario 3, and we set out below our reasons for supporting these options. Where are comments relate directly to one of the questions raised in the Issues and Options paper, we have referenced the question to assist in processing this response.
Employment potential and the overall Vision
At a strategic level, both Rochford and Southend districts have a requirement to deliver significant levels of new employment alongside the growth of housing and the achievement of other land-use objectives. Achieving employment growth requires the provision not just of sufficient land to enable businesses to growth, but also creating the conditions that encourage economic investment and business confidence.
Southend Airport offers not only a significant source of local employment and growth potential in its own right, but also the potential to act as a catalyst for employment growth in other sectors, irrespective of whether or not they have a direct link to the aviation industry.
The airport has the benefit of a readily accessible location, both in terms of public transport and the highway network. Unlike other potential employment locations in the eastern parts of Southend, it does not suffer from the same perceived image of being peripheral and inaccessible. Furthermore (and as set out in the Issues and Options document at section 2.3), the general quality of the building stock is high, and whilst there is undoubtedly scope for intensification and redevelopment within the Aviation Way business park, generally the image of the area is one of vibrancy and an 'up-market' business environment that attracts quality companies.
The expansion of the airport will serve to further reinforce the attractiveness of the area for business, both through major projects such as the new rail station, and through more general investment in local transportation and the local environment. The location also offers the potential for diversification in the local employment base, attracting new office and high tech development alongside the growth in aviation and engineering.
The identification of the airport as a strategic growth area, and the establishment of a clear framework through the JAAP, provides the opportunity to focus public and private sector investment in a consistent and co-ordinated manner to deliver the required infrastructure enhancement.
Within the above context, we would respond to Questions 3.1, 3.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 as follows:
Q3.1 Overall Vision we agree with the overall vision as set out on page 33
Q3.2 Objectives we agree with the proposed objectives. In particular, we agree with the reference in the first objective to "other land uses", since the JAAP offers the opportunity to deliver complementary land uses alongside the focus on new employment as part of the achievement of a balanced growth package;
Q4.3 Role in the wider sub-region the JAAP has a significant role to play in helping Rochford and Southend meet their strategic requirements for employment growth up to 2021 and beyond;
Q4.4 Suitability for growth the area offers the potential to deliver a highly sustainable location for employment growth, alongside a clear strategy for infrastructure enhancements;
Q4.5 Attractiveness to investors the location offers a potentially prestigious environment for inward investment, and is likely to be highly attractive to the business community.
The Green Belt
The current boundary of the Green Belt follows an unusual course in the sense that for significant areas it does not follow any recognisable features on the ground. The most obvious example of this is the location of the Green Belt in relation to the airport, but equally in the vicinity of the Westcliff Rugby Club and Green Belt is drawn to bisect the adjoining tennis courts. Irrespective of the JAAP, there is a case for rationalising the Green Belt boundary in this area.
If unaltered, however, the Green Belt would act as a considerable constraint on the achievement of the land use objectives of the JAAP. In all but the low growth scenario some change to the Green Belt boundary would be required. In our view it will be important to ensure that a lack of land available for inward investment and employment generation does not undermine the objectives of the JAAP, and therefore we support an amendment to the Green Belt boundary.
In accordance with advice in PPG2, where the Green Belt is amended, it will be important to ensure that the alternative boundary is defensible in the long term, and that there will not need to be further amendments.
Not all of the land that may be released from the Green Belt would necessarily be developed in the short term, and the release of employment land in particular may be phased over the longer-term. However, we would suggest that it is important to ensure that any change to the Green Belt is robust in terms of setting an appropriate long-term boundary, and in our view Rayleigh Brook would provide a suitable alternative southern boundary to the Green Belt, with the airport and adjoining land south of the Brook excluded.
In response to Q4.7, therefore, we consider that the Green Belt should be revised, and the revised boundary should be Rayleigh Brook.
The Areas for Change
In response to Q4.12, we agree with the identified 'areas for change'. In particular, we agree with the identification of the Brickworks site as an area for change. We agree that this is an area in need of improvement, and that the quality of the area is poor in environmental terms.
We would add to the analysis by highlighting the fact that the Brickworks site provides a substantial resource of Previously Developed Land, totalling around 6 hectares. Our own technical investigations of the site have shown that the area is not at any substantive risk of flooding, that the ecological value of the site is low (subject to the retention of the boundary vegetation), and that access can be provided in a safe and convenient fashion from Cherry Orchard Way.
The Scenarios
We do not support Scenario 1. The 'low growth' scenario is tantamount to a 'no change' scenario and the opportunity that exists to utilise the airport to stimulate economic development and investment would be lost.
In response to Q5.1, we offer some support for Scenarios 2a and 2b, but our preference is for Scenario 3, which recognises the potential benefits of the area and seeks to deliver them as part of a comprehensive Masterplan aimed at achieving significant employment growth alongside full investment in infrastructure and environmental enhancement.
Cherry Orchard Brickworks
We support the identification of the brickworks site as a location for residential development under Options 2a, 2b, and 3. As indicated previously, our own technical studies have shown that the site is suitable for residential development, and an appropriate scheme would help to enhance the landscape in this location and make good use of an area of previously developed land. We envisage that redevelopment could be a catalyst for improving connections between the Country Park to the west and Rochford town centre to the east, and could contribute to the achievement of the objective for a visitor centre/heritage centre in the area.
On a broader level, we would suggest that the inclusion of an element of residential development as part of the wider land-use proposals for the JAAP would be entirely complimentary to the objectives for the area, both in terms of the local environmental enhancement and in terms of the co-location of housing with an area of employment expansion and transportation investment. The site would represent a highly sustainable location for residential development in that context, whilst helping to meet the overall requirement for new homes in Rochford district.
Overall
To conclude, we support the Vision and objectives of the JAAP, and we support the growth scenarios set out therein, and in particular Scenario 3.
I trust the above representations will be taken into account, and we look forward to acknowledgement of receipt in due course.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2639
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Colonnade Land LLP
Agent: DO NOT USE THIS ACCOUNT - Iceni Projects Limited
4.4 â€" 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.
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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2655
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: Dedman Planning & Regeneration Ltd
Q4. 4 - Providing the infrastructure proposed is implemented, I consider the area appropriate for growth in employment, particularly when made more easily accessible.
As Managing Director of Dedman Property Services, and in support of Southend Airport, I would like to submit my responses to some of the questions raised in the JAAP Options and Issues as follows;
Q3.1 - I agree with the overall vision for the JAAP which is generally in line with the aims and objectives of regional planning policy and also stakeholders like Renaissance Southend and local business groups.
Q4.1 - Assuming that the potential of the airport is optimised by Scenario 3, I see it as a catalyst for major employment and business growth as well as an efficient transport hub.
Q4. 4 - Providing the infrastructure proposed is implemented, I consider the area appropriate for growth in employment, particularly when made more easily accessible.
Q4.5 - Very much so, particularly with the level of improvements set out in Scenario 3.
Q4.7 - Yes the Green Belt should be revised in line with Scenario 3. Rochford District Council has an abundance of green Belt remaining and the buffer between Rochford and Southend would be maintained.
Q4.12 - Yes
Q5.1 - Scenario 3 is clearly my preference. I see the airport as a major asset to Southend and the wider area and its potential should be maximised rather than wasted. Scenario 1 would not realise any potential for growth and Scenarios 2 (a) and (b) could result in some investment being made at the risk of no return or benefit to the area in financial or other terms. The extension to the runway is of paramount importance to facilitate the immense potential.
The Southend Borough is already relatively densely developed and highly populated. A significant level of investment here will attract businesses by providing a high quality environment. It will also provide income to provide the necessary mitigation measures required to offset the environmental impact that will inevitably result from the increase in activity.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2679
Received: 05/08/2008
Respondent: Mr M Foster
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
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
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2697
Received: 08/08/2008
Respondent: EEDA
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, support 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 and 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.
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, support 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 and 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 â€" possibly with a layout design and managements 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.
Comment
London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper
Representation ID: 2738
Received: 11/08/2008
Respondent: Mrs D J Pacey
Yes.
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: 2751
Received: 11/08/2008
Respondent: Mr and Mrs A T Clark
No.
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.