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

How will a new station affect Rochford Station?

I am against a revision of the greenbelt. The reason that people come to our area and the reason that people live in Rochford as compared to outer London, is for the quality of life. Our peace would be shattered, greenspace lost and the environment polluted.

Green belt should not be used unless there is a good, and tangible reason for doing so. Concrete and brick over green belt without a relatively risk free and tangible benefit cant be undone.

No

no

No.

Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan consultation (JAAP)

Response from Hilary Davison

2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?
No. Rochford Hundred Golf Course And Rochford Tennis Club are not recorded

2.2 Are there any important assets missing from the assessment?
No

3.1 Do you agree with the overall vision for the JAAP?
Yes

3.2 Do the objectives set out cover the key requirements from the area?
Yes But with following amendments
b) Insert local regional after thriving
c) add to end are in place before any expansion of the airport and other areas of the JAAP.
d) remove whether; change or for and

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 & 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)
More on Newquay model expending to Norwich model with required infrastructure. Catering for the niche UK market bringing more passengers in and out and increasing the tourist market.Destinations to N & Central Europe. Thereafter look to northern and central continent, CI and Ireland targeting 'short break market'
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?
JAAP to act as facilitator for both authorities to work together for the regeneration of the area

4.4 Is the area suitable for significant growth in employment?
Yes - But must consider whether growth in employment will create added vehicle movements & therefore an increase in air pollution & road congestion.
Major trunk road improvements vital

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

4.6 Are there additional options to consider?
Yes probable detrimental effect of relocation of existing businesses from other business parks in the vicinity causing displacement of labour and run down of other sites e.g. Progress Road, Purdeys Way and Sutton Road

4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so, how should it be revised?
Only the green belt within the airport perimeter should be revised and then only in accordance with airport expansion and safety issues The Area ii(a) should be considered for use for permitted expansion of Aviation Way Business Park (i.e.10acres[4.05h) only) within Green Belt Area as is the Old Brickworks
OR that only those areas be taken out of Green Belt designation

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 and Country Park be extended to take in all Green Belt land between Southend & Rochford
(2) 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 industrial area

4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?
Carbon and aviation fuel emissions and noise pollution - Create a 20 year airport expansion plan with improved transportation included.
Have proper consultations with fixed based operators
Mitigation by restricting the types of aircraft used and restricting night flying

4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?
Firstly, identify the cachment area targeted for airport passengers and the other component parts of the JAAP area and consider the new and improved roads required.
There is no conceivable answer to road improvements for the maximum number of passenger numbers considered in the JAAP
Road linkage to central Southend and to the west to be put in place before airport developments take place
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 Rde schemes with shuttle buses to/from the airport
Expensive parking fees at the airport and surrounding roads (with residents' permits)
Much improved local bus services to/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 except :i (old brickworks)
ii(a) (10acres actually on the north side of Aviation Way itself, for limited development only)
iic (buffer zone)
(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
Replace with Medium Growth 2b Aviation Cluster

5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?
By not revising any Green Belt except what lies within the airport boundary and i + iia + iic
A better mix of leisure inc. theme parks, office and light engineering

5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered? Expansion of Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul operations within area (iii) Land at end of Aviation Way
2. Accept that the prevailing road and rail infrastructure is inadequate and cannot easily be enhanced to accommodate an international airport.
Look at a regional airport on the lines of Newquay initially and engage with fixed based operators to plot the way forward with an agreed plan over say 20 years
Ensure that the plan covers both inward and outward passengers to support local needs in air travel requirements and as part of the promotion of Southend and its locality for the tourist industry

Leave the green belt alone

No,green belt land should be left as it is.No revision is needed or wanted.

The existing Green Belt boundary across the Airport is arbitrary and unrelated to natural features or development. It should be revised so as to exclude the entire Airport and all of the development areas in the preferred scenario and to follow a natural feature.

In response to the proposed expansion of Southend Airport, I carefully read through your report. I cannot see any benefits to the people living in the surrounding areas, near and further afield.

Firstly the noise. People that have moved here in the last two decades have enjoyed peace and tranquility. That is why they moved here in the first place, so any expansion to the airport would obviously disrupt this. Forty planes plus daily from 7am until midnight is unacceptable.

The area would not appeal to a mixed bag as no one in their right mind would want to live near an airport, therefore property prices would be affected.

Newspapers are always referring to protests regarding Heathrow and Stansted about noise and every day living being unbearable.

The A127 and A13 is under enornmous pressure at the moment.

Airport traffic would make matters worse, regardless of a new train link, as we all know people prefer to use a car. Local people going to and from their place of work already have to deal with road congestion.

I am opposed to compulsory purchase as I have had first hand experience of this.

Please hang on to what little green belt we have left, for habitat and beauty. After all, no one wants to live in a concrete jungle.

Government should be bringing down carbon emissions not adding to it.

I am sorry but I totally oppose any expansion to the airport.

In response to your letter dated June 25, 2008, I offer the following comments and suggestions in respect of the planned future development of London Southend Airport. I have to say that my knowledge of the Airport and the surrounding road patterns is limited, being a relatively newcomer to Rochford. Therefore I present my comments only in general terms.

Airport Expansion

The Airport perimeter will need to be expanded, as much as possible, to allow further development of business and operating services. I agree that the existing runway should be lengthened but it can only be extended in one direction, the S.W. as aircraft landing and taking off occasionally have to cope with a strong crosswind. Therefore, I suggest that the provision of a second runway should be included in the long term plan.

I notice that a taxiing strip crosses the runway at right angle. Is it possible that this strip could be lengthened in a N.W. direction and updated to runway status, for use as wind directions dictate. Admittedly this is a bold suggestion and the implementation of it would incur costly back-up facilities. However, presumably this whole project would require Government financial support.

Being a provincial airport with limited ground space for expansion, I think that any notion of long haul flights should be discarded. Having regard to the volume of passenger and baggage traffic that would be involved, I do not think that Southend terminal facilities would cope. The Joint Area Action Plan should be concentrated to the promotion of medium and short haul services. Presumably this will impose a limitation to passenger aircraft size. Even so, with engines as full power, noise and pollution at the point of take-off will need to be endured.

Control Tower

Consideration should be given early in the planning stage to the provision of a "state-of-the-art" control tower with the latest beacon and radar systems. The density of property surrounding the Airport demands the highest degree of guidance to aircraft arriving and departing.

Helicopter Station

If it is possible, space allocation wise, the following helicopter services could be considered:-

Police
Air Sea Rescue
Coast Guard
Air Ambulance
Postal Air Traffic

Hotel

The erection of a new hotel, within reasonable distance of airport passenger facilities and incorporating additional car parking, is an attractive proposition. Of course commercial viability would depend on guest potential. I suggest the inclusion of a mini Supermarket close to the Arrival Lounge.

Commercial Air Traffic and Light Industry

I have little knowledge of the present situation regarding either of these subjects and do not feel qualified to offer constructive comment. Clearly both must be developed but not to the extent that open green space is squandered.

Road and Rail Transport

A rail station and bust stop, each as close as possible to the passenger arrival and departure terminals is a must, and I note is under active consideration. Road alterations and new road construction will be necessary but I am not familiar with present road patterns to offer detailed suggestions.

If Southend Airport is to be enlarged, Airline Operators will need to entice passengers from East Anglia, East of London and even the North Kent area to maintain viability, bearing in mind that the Channel Rail Tunnel will represent severe competition.

The major roads in South Essex should be re-assessed. For fast, efficient, connections, capital expenditure will be unavoidable. Known traffic bottlenecks should be ironed out or bypassed. For the benefit of traffic from East Anglia, a more direct connection with the A130 and then to the A12 is needed. The A127 and in particular the A13 need improvement. I advocate flyovers and underpasses at roundabouts.

I regret that I have not been able to write in a more comprehensive manner, or have answered the remainder of your questionnaire but I hope that what I have written will be included for consideration in the coming planning stage.

PS May I add one late thought which is not specifically concerned with the Joint Action Plan. I would like Rochford Council to adopt the policy of planting woodland trees, in the Rochford District, wherever and whenever possible.

The Green Belt should be revised so that it excludes the airport operational land and expansion areas for employment as shown in scenario 3.

The Green Belt should be retained and never revised downwards.

no - the boundaries of the green belt should not be revised. Any new development should take place within the existing built up areas. Development of the green belt in the JAAP area would significantly erode the perception of a gap between Rochford and Southend, and represent urban sprawl

Southend has lost enough green space as it is and the proposed development of the new retail park and stadium only compounds this.

If anything the Green Belt should be expanded to protect all remaining undeveloped green spaces.

To enable wider growth within the airport it is essential that the Green Belt boundary be revised. It is important that areas that are under utilised adjacent to the airport can be included within the boundary to enable improved development. In particular the area of land east of the railway adjacent to Southend Road should be included in the Airport boundary and not retailed as Green Belt. As owners of this land we would support its release from the Green Belt

I am concerned that any development of the airport will lead to the detriment of the surrounding area and that designated green belt, landscape, habitat and heritage, (which must be held sacrosanct) will be lost forever with no benefit to those who live in the area.

Yes,provided the revision does provide the retention of as much Green belt as possible.
Any land that can be changed to green belt that is not required for development should be strongly supported.

Thank you for sending us JAAP Issues & Options Report which we have now read and understood.

There seems to be no mention of anticipated night flight numbers which even at the moment disturb our sleep.

Our preferred scenario for the future of Southend Airport would be 'low growth'. The environmental impact on the area would spoil the area.

The green belt areas are places for people to relax and enjoy the countryside which is not possible with noisy aircraft over head and increased air pollution.

When world leaders are meeting to try to reduce carbon emissions why are we in this area trying to increase them?

C and S Associates agree that the green belt boundary should be revised to enable development to come forward, as identified in the JAAP. In particular the Brickworks site, as defined by the boundary set out in the Issues and Options JAAP, should be taken out of the greenbelt.

The green belt boundary can be amended to enable development of the Brickworks site to take place without compromising any adjoining green belt. The site can provided with defensible boundaries which will afford future protection of any adjoining green belt, should it remain, and so development will not threaten the function and purpose of the green belt.

No, green belt is sacrosanct.

The greenbelt should be seen as a way in which irresponsible development can be held in check.

NO. The green belt area is a useful place for the inhabitants of Rochford and Southend as it serves a recreational purpose. There is little green space in the area and what is left should be preserved.

In face of climate change green spaces need to be preserved and trees planted to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The green belt offers a green lung to Southend which is heavily urbanised. The only revision allowed should be associated with road access and not commercial development.

NO
All protected green areas must continue to remain protected

NO
All protected green areas must continue to remain protected

no, we have little enough green belt now. Unless you are suggesting extending it!

With respect to the comment by TABOR FARMS, well they would say that wouldn't they...? Of course they would be willing to sell their piece of land for development, i imagine it would fetch a tidy sum if they did, & to hell with the local residents as long as there is money being made! The profit motive is not a wrong motive, but it must be remembered that plenty of self-interest is at play in this whole JAAP plan, & it must be taken into account when looking at where support for these plans is coming from..........

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.