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

The presence of Green Belt is a major factor in people's choice to live (and possibly work) in the area. Significant reduction in the amount of green lung may be counter-productive - never has the words of 'Big Yellow Taxi' held more meaning for me!

Green Belt could be revised, but any increase in work places would require more Green Belt to be eroded for the housing to support them, and there would be extra loss over a wider area well outside the Development Plan area to provide more roads and other transport links.

Not in my opinion. I believe it should remain as it is.

Not in my opinion. I believe it should remain as it is.

I have looked at these plans and I think a few questions are raised.

1- Since I believe the airport is currently for sale, I wonder if it is wise to make these plans before the sale has taken place. I believe that these plans constitute an uncertainty that can only prolong the sale process and general confusion. I think it would make far more sense to stop proposing different plans that will impact on the market value of the business. Of course once it is sold, we will then know who the new owners will be and what they propose.

2- I notice at the moment that 1500 people are employed within the environs of the airport, but that most of them are not directly employed by the workings (flights/maintenance) of the airport. It seems to me that if the runways were given over to industrial use, there could be a lot of development and employment without the environmental "disbenifits" of an industry that is currently based on burning fossil fuels and creating CO2.

3- This brings me to my last point, which is to ask whether further development centred around an industry that is based on a limited resource (fossil fuels) is strategically sound for the future of this area.

Obviously I would be opposed to any plans which allow re-allocation of greenbelt land for a strategy with such strong environmental disbenefits!



I believe that as it stands, the airport makes a profit for its owners and as they are wishing to sell, there is no pressing reason to move ahead with any of these proposals. I am unaware of local employment problems and therefore am not at all sure what is in it for Rochford, nor why there is any need for haste.

The airport seems to have arrived at its present situation due to a complete lack of strategic foresight. Let's not continue in the same vein eh?

Regards Craig Carter

Revison is a euphamsism for reduction. The green belt should not be reduced. It helps give Rochford a seperate identity and prevents it from becoming part of the massive sprawl of the Southend area

You must "counter" the anti lobby. Looking at the "Leigh Times" there is a noisy campaign starting.

No

more green belt land needs to be preserved. southend needs more not less to ensure the growing population can enjoy it.

Absolutely not, we have already lost far too much green belt

In response to your request on views on the above subject, I object to this expansion on the following points.

Firstly the infrastructure is inadequate, I know a lot of people who will not live in this area because of the traffic problems as high-lighted only recently with the gas leak at Rayleigh. It seems that on a fairly frequent basis that there are problems on the A127 or the A13 and everything comes to a stanstill. Even without this the traffic is past saturation point and would not make it a popular choice to use this airport (and not miss flights!)

The car parking facilities at this airport are not on par with any other airport and at the end of the day passengers usually want the convenience of their own cars and do not like to use public transport. Which brings us to the use of the new proposed rail link to the airport, which could be made unsustainable or even obsolete. I know from other airports that they rely heavily on car parking, shopping areas etc to make any profits, otherwise the landing fees usually have to be so high the airport loses out to cheaper options.

It has been said about this being for the local population, which I have read in the local news that a lot of the new residents of Southend seem to live on benefits, so not the healthy economy that will provide for a sustained larger airport.

There are the environmental issues such as noise, vibration and pollution, which are becoming paramount to the government and world leaders in general. They cannot be ignored forever. The oil crisis which seems to be growing, demand outstripping supply. The aviation industry is one of the first to be affected by all this. When all this hits home is there going to be a lot of white elephants in the Southeast. There is the concern of shrinking green belt land, it seems in this area it has been built on more than most areas, so the area is already lacking in green belt. There is also concern of more demand on the water supply in the drought ridden area of the Southeast.

The economic arguments do not add up either as the Stop Stansted Expansion group have proved even with a larger airport expansion proposal such as Stansted. They have proved this to government bodies and the business work, but it seems the government are in the pocket of BAA and do not judge this on the facts. Let's hope Rochford Council are more sensible.

The idea that the expansion will help with the Olympic Games, I believe a couple of weeks event that will leave a lot of waste in its wake. This is based on speaking to business people in the London area. So generally I think it is a bad idea to expand this airport, there seems to be a glut of airport in this part of the country anyway and makes this unnecessary.

Green belt must not be altered. We are losing so much countryside and land to housing and other developments already. I do not want to live in an urban jungle. Green belt should be sacred.

absolutely not.

No

No. Green belt is Green Belt and should not be interfered with. It is designated Green belt for a very good reason. These areas are still a medium flood risk.

Some reworking of the green belt within the JAAP development area would be justified in order that Option 3 can be realistically acheived.
However, a robust alternative green belt line between the extent of the airport boundary (allowing some room for businesses to expand)and Rochford must be maintained.

No the Green Belt should be retained if not increased

I do not have a computer. I am sorry I have tried to answer the questions but feel I haven't got all the information! Haven't been much help. Felt the need to complete as you sent a stamped addressed envelope. Sincere apologies.

In order to realise the future potential of the airport and to deliver the employment growth in the South Essex sub-region to 2021, the expansion of the airport and the aviation related industrial/business growth need to be planned. The present boundary of the airport and the employment area is very restricted and gives only a limited opportunity for expansion that will allow airport for increase passenger throughput. Similarly, the potential expansion of the business in the adjoining employment area is restricted and those businesses wishing expand are unable to do so. The future review of the Green Belt should exclude the Airport operational land and the area to the north-west of the airport identified for the expansion of the employment area in the JAAP.

There is great local demand for European flights whether day trips or holiday flights. During 70's and 80's Southend Airport was extremely busy and European flights were often wait-listed as flights were full.