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

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.

We are writing to you with regards to your consultation in relation to the possible expansion of London Southend Airport.

We have read through the consultation documents and have got to oppose to the two scenarios that would mean the biggest expansion of the airport.

We live on the current flight path of the airport traffic that flies over the Blenheim area and at the moment it is just about tolerable. If the flights are increased to the amount that the Airport wants we could see the complete destruction of the way we live.

We are already woken in the mornings by large planes flying over and if we are sitting in our garden and one flies over, we cannot hear each other speak. One of the reasons we bought our house was due to the large garden it has. To have a possible 4 planes an hour flying overhead, every hour would be a nightmare. We would loose the use of our garden as a place of relaxation, our right for a good night sleep and also any peace and tranquillity everybody deserves in their home. Also to ensure that there are only four planes an hour, does that mean we will have to put up with night flights? This would be completely unfair to residents under the flight path as the planes coming over already wake us up! What is Southend Airport going to do to minimise the noise/vibration that will be emitted by the Boeing 737's that they will be using? The noise of the current planes is bad enough without the use of larger planes.

We are not naïve in thinking that nothing should be done to the airport in bringing more jobs and prosperity to the town but why should it be to the suffering of the people who live under the flight path and the surrounding areas? Why must the airport be extended to such an extent that it will affect the way people live? There must be a way of bringing money into the area without upsetting so many residents (i.e. scenario one of the consultation).

Two million passengers a year is such a large leap we really don't think that the infrastructure could cope with this. We cannot see how the roads will be able to cope with the amount of traffic that expansion to the airport would create. Yes there is currently planning permission for a railway station but to think that people will use this other than their own car is madness. Everyone will prefer to drive his or her own car. I use the A127 daily and during rush hour the road is completely chock a block going into and out of Southend. I can't see how the roads will be able to deal with the influx of traffic.

There is also the environmental element as well. The government constantly talk about protecting the environment with regards to pollution, we can't see how creating more air traffic is going to help this. The council wish to promote the Southend area, as a place for tourists to come and visit but if the airport expands the constant noise/vibrations of the aeroplanes will actually put people off of coming here. Leigh, Hockley and Rochford are all areas which will be affected by the noise and are places where people enjoy going to country pubs, walks etc.

If in the very unfortunate event that the higher impact scenarios are chosen (which we feel has already been decided!), the council must ensure that everything is done to protect the people who will be affected by this, i.e. conditions that airport must follow re the amount of flights it can use, flight times (to allow people to sleep without being woken up/none on Sundays), mass reduction of noise and vibrations, which need to be closely monitored by the relevant council departments. We think this is the very least the council should do to protect the needs of the taxpayers affected.

We both feel that Southend Council have not advertised the fact that this consultation period is going on and how members of the public can comment. We have spoken to many of our neighbours and they had no idea what was happening and that they could consult. Everything we have read in the local papers says that there is a consultation but we feel that nothing clearly states that residents need to comment to the council. We know that Rochford Council have advised the majority of their residents with details of the Joint Action Plan through their paper 'Rochford Matters' and therefore everyone has been given the opportunity to be involved. We don't feel that Southend Council has done the same and are very disappointed in this.

Please find enclosed several letters that were sent into 'The Leigh Times' which we feel echo the feelings of many of us in the Leigh area.

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.

Q4.4 There are plenty of potential employment sites in the Rochford/Southend areas. If necessary businesses activities could be restricted to those relating directly to the airport site.

Q4.9 The greatest impact will be the increased noise, vibration, pollution, and danger to the residents in and around this area which is directly under the flightpath. The current runway is 1610 metres long. This adequate safety margin and all circumstances. At the moment planes fly over my rooftop at an unbelievably low height. It will only take one small misjudgement or mechanical fault to result in massive loss of life both to passengers, crew and residents.

How can these impacts be mitigated? Quite easily. Forget about runway extensions, build a new one heading NNW which could provide a runway in excess of 2000 metres to the edge of Hall Road. Take off and landing would be to the west of Ashingdon over what is predominantly agricultural land.

This rather obvious solution, which I understand has been mooted for years, would remove the need for closure/diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane, an expense which could be offset against the new runway costs.

Q5.1 My preferred scenario would be 3, but only if modified as suggested above.

Because of the limited time to reply, I would like to see more publicity given to future consultation with the concern today of carbon footprint to envisage a project on this scale does not seem feasible.

1. Being under the flight path and already having regular noise pollution and emissions i am concerned with the proposed increase in flights, especially night flights.

2. Density of residential buildings in Southend and Leigh make this appear hazardous on incoming and outgoing flights.

3. Green belt should not be encroached upon.

4. The roads are already congested. A127 and A13 with accidents happening regularly.

5. The rail terminus will not encourage people to use the train rather than car. High cost of fares and delays.

6. This will destroy and not regenerate, it will be just an urban sprawl.

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.