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

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.

My view of the action plan for Southend Airport.

1. To stay as it is.

2. Maybe go to plan 2

Do not want the Lane closed. As I go to the church (Sundays and midweek) plus the Dentist. Don't own a car, and the No.9 bus is very important to my life.

Do not want even more Green belt taken.

The roads are not good enough to take more traffic.

When people pay the true cost

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.

London Southend Airport & Environs JAAP

AREA AFFECTED

I obtained this consultation document from another organisation and we discussed it at our last committee meeting. Our first comment is that the JAAP Area 2.1 is not wide enough. Historically, the Blenheim Park Ward and the park area of Belfairs suffered greatly from Airport noise. Therefore the school governors (of whom I am) are concerned for the nuisance to pupils and staff. Bridgewater Drive, Prittlewell Chase residents and schools were badly affected. There are 3 grammar schools, 4 primary and a special school. Although we could be told that the new generation of aircraft will be less noise, the flight paths are critical and aircraft every few minutes will be a distraction. We are supportive of the airport â€" but we remember what it was like in modest use, without the expansion now envisaged.

ENVIRONMENTAL 4.4

There are many references to biodiversity and the green belt but no strategy for dealing with these questions other than vague references to "The impact being unknown" and "an ecology survey". Likewise not any strategy stated for waste water or water quality improvement. The expansion of the airport should not go ahead without measurable answers to these questions.

Green belt must be safeguarded and habitats preserved. The detrimental effect on Cherry Orchard Park, the Roach Valley etc are only hinted at. IT is essential that the space between Southend and Rochford is maintained. Too much concrete will lead to flooding and the area of Southend and Wakering have been flooded before.

GENERAL

Public transport in the area is poor. East to West main routes are better served, North South is poor. Park and ride does not solve every problem. There is no mention of people with disabilities getting to the Airport and how their needs are to be met. In my personal work with blind and partially sighted people I have attended European meetings regarding the new AIR REGULATIONS which place the responsibility for disabled people and their need in the airport and on the airline. I would like an answer to this specific issue please.

Thank you for the helpful telephone conversation. Bad weather prevented me from returning as planned and I apologise for the written response. I would like our Residents Association to be included in the ongoing development and any future consultations.