4.4 Issue 3: Balancing development with environmental enhancement in the JAAP

I am strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development. Any improvement to amenities and lessening the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

Following on from my email on 25.06.08 I would just like to reiterate my comments on the proposed expansion of the above mentioned airport.

I strongly oppose any expansion of southend airport on the grounds of environmental damage and the health risks to local residents.

I find it strange that at a time when the government is making bold statements about cutting Co2 emissions that it would sanction the expansion of any airport let alone Southend due to its sensitive location to wildlife, conservation and green belt areas.

We are constantly being askied to do our bit for the environment, indeed this month sees the introduction of Rochford Councils new refuse recycling programme, whereby residents will be expected to filter their rubbish into three different bins. I haven't got a problem with this because I want to do all I can to help the environment, I just feel there are double standards going on.

Increasing air traffic into and out of Southend will be a disaster for both the environment and the well being of everybody living in the area due to noise, pollution and more depletion of the ozone.

On a personal level I have already been affected by the thinning of the ozone as my partner has been diagnosed with skin cancer. As you can imagine we are currently going through a traumatic and anxious time, but what is also worrying is that my girlfriend has brown hair, brown eyes and olive skin as she is of Italian extraction. Further more she doesn't sunbathe and we rarely go abroad. If someone with her skin type is contracting skin cancer in this country what chance do the rest of us stand!

Please, let us safe guard the health of our community and the environment they live in and not go ahead with this expansion.

Kind regards

I see this a positive move. You still have important Green Belt land as a division, yet allow for growth at the same time.

The additional use of discharge into Eastwood/Prittlewell Brooks is an environmental worry for any expansion. Also the number of anticipated flights at say 40, implies 40 out - which could also mean 40 in. The noise pollution for any increase in flights, not just in the immediate area, but also in areas of Leigh would be unbearable considering the height at which the planes would, and already do, pass ovehead particularly over schools under the flight path.Not to mention the increase in road traffic which is already a problem.

Dear Sir

Proposed Expansion of Southend Airport

In response to your letter of July 9th I have the following observations to make regarding the above. These are the reasons I am against the expansion.

1. Noise - Somebody, I don't know who, stated in the local paper that no increase in noise level would be experienced. This is arrant nonsense. Having worked for some time in close proximity to Heathrow I can vouch for the fact that a modern jet airliner generates noise on take-off that is mind numbing. With all doors and windows closed normal conversation is impossible, not to mention the vibration created. No account appears to have been taken of the massive increase in number of flights.

I was involved in contracts at nearby Brentford and Stanwell which include treble glazing and the application of external sound insulating material to the walls of houses affected. All to no avail.

2. Pollution - The same person also stated that no increase in pollution would occur. Once again drawing on my experience at Heathrow and from conversations with people who lived here when more long distance flights took place this is totally incorrect and once again the increase in the number of flights is not considered.

3. Danger - All areas surrounding the airport are densely built up. In addition to which we now have the Tesco and RBS buildings right in the flight path.

This does not apply to Stansted, Gatwick or even Heathrow which have large open tracts of land around them.

4. Alternative Airports - When the Maplin project was first mooted many years ago this was eventually discarded on various grounds, one of which was the interference with the environment of some rare sea birds, none of which I have ever seen. Other reasons were the difficulty of improving the infrastructure and transport links.

Maplin, of course was by far the best choice, having none of the problems mentioned above. This lesson can be reinforced studying Nice airport in the south of France, where the planes take off and land over the sea.

Instead the decision was made to upgrade Stansted, which was a simple grass strip when I visited it in 1955, and the Maplin project cancelled for ever.

Gatwick and Stansted are less than an hours' drive from this area and as far as I am concerned they dispense with the need for another major airport serving London.

4. Diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane - Presumably this would be via Rochford. Traffic through this town would be increased enormously at the same time depriving commuters of an alternative to the grossly overused A127, laid down in 1933 and hardly modified since. Therefore far more traffic would be generated with no plans to improve the totally inadequate road network, indeed the existing system would be downgraded by this diversion.

5. New Railway Station - Why do we need a new Railway Station when Rochford is less than a mile from the airport? Shuttle buses could be laid on to ferry passengers to and from the Terminal.

6. S.T.O.L. - Occassionally I see this type of aircraft taking off from Southend Airport. They are much quieter than the large jets and of course do not require an extended runway. These have been used with great success at the London City Airport for many years. Why not increase the use of S.T.O.L. aircraft?

7. Devaluation of surrounding properties - This will occur if the expansion takes place for the reasons given above.

A key objective of the JAAP is to ensure a high quality environment is maintained for local residents but I don't see any proposal on how the key impacts (noise, pollution, air quality) which will result from increased aircraft movements will be mitigated. As someone who lives on the flight path I would like this question answered.

The JAAP states that residents views should be considered in taking forward future plans. How about writing to all those residents on the flight path and in the surrounding areas about your plans and giving us a decent opportunity to air our views?

As noted in relation to Section 2.1, the Green Belt boundary across the runway is arbitrary and does not relate to natural features or development. Green Belt policy requires that a sequential test is done for any proposed development, to see if there any non Green Belt sites available. An arbitrary boundary then leads to perverse planning as facilities may be located in sub optimal locations. The sequential test is clearly inappropriate if the facility has to be at an airport and the only non Green Belt sites are not at the airport.

On reading the front page of the echo news paper for Mon, August 18 08. I have noticed an extravagant title of the planned Hotel to be built in Cherry Orchard Lane. This will affect the airport and country side of which I am highly objective.

What is wrong with having the planned hotel along the sea front in Southend as I am led to believe will be built. This will I feel sure be adequate. We do not want any Airport expansion and I have read and understood the JAAP to which I replied. Further I have studied and passed on the minutes of meeting at Leigh Town Council, of which a no vote was passed.

I share with a good many people that we do not want any extra flights or bigger planes, air pollution, noise pollution and air crash disaster impending. Not to mention a lovely attraction of suicide bombers to our town or air space. An air disaster such as the Paris concord crash that killed innocent lives.

it seems that our decisions of any plans of big business is done over looking any public debate or decision. No money for funding will cover any opposition I know doubt.

I know that as I do not live in the county council of Rochford area, my objections will be ignored. So I will just say please be reasonable about the objections and leave the countryside alone.

Once I used to be able to cycle or walk along roads to Rochford, picking gooseberries and strawberries and bird watching and fishing. Watching the lovely swans at Stambridge Mills and my parents would turn in their grave at the proposals threatening our lovely town and country.

The Olympic games in our country may be happening but use other places.

Olympic visitors and sportsmen and women can be just as easily housed or put up nearer London. Somewhere else please!

Thank you for reading my little letter and as a Christian I would just like to say God wasn't in the Earthquake but in the still small voice! Kings. God does know everything and he knows me and my protest, he will be ignored I'm sure. Money talks I know doubt!