Q4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can this be mitigated?

This site was only brought to my attention in late July with the issue of Rochford Matters and having been on holiday I have had little opportunity to review all the documentation surrounding this.

It does seem however that aside from the fact that local residents are being discouraged from putting forward their views by the website structure and availability, there is also bias towards expansion options with little consideration to the impact this would have locally.

What consideration is being given to aircraft noise and flight paths (this is something I have raised previously with the CAA and Southend airport, the latter having declined to respond) given that much of the area around Rochford has undergone significant housing expansion since flight paths were originally drawn up and planes now fly over these areas? The airport is in an increasingly cramped spot and significant expansion is not viable given the other demands on space - it would be nice to see some greenbelt areas remain (re-drawn really means that space is cut and/or the area allocated is not of commercial value).

Increasing the airport will mean an increase in road traffic - there is no motorway or, with the speed restrictions imposed on A127, road with a national speed limit within miles of the stadium (except for country roads out towards Wakering) and congestion is already an issue on the main routes into Southend.

Why is expansion seen as the best option, airlines are under increasing pressure, fuel prices etc etc and the major London airports of Stansted and Heathrow are being expanded anyway? Air travel is being discouraged for environmental reasons and additional capacity, infrastructure and space exists elsewhere in the South East.

Why wasn't the railway development considered in conjunction with the Southend United Stadium development? A more logical outcome would been to have located the Football club on the current rugby club facilities and moved the Rugby club to the proposed site of the new stadium, the station would then serve both the airport and the football club.

If I had enough time I would make many other points on this subject but given that submissions must be made by 5pm today there is insufficient opportunity. I sincerely expect the council to allow and properly respond to further public debate and consultation on this matter before an expansion decision is made

Response to L S A & Environs Issues & Options Report

By
Murray Foster
(local involvements include Chair of Southend Business & Tourism Partnership and Director of Essex Chambers of Commerce)


Q2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?

Yes, fully reported and understood

Q2.2 Are there any important assets or issues missing from the assessment?

No, none

Q3.1 Do you agree with the overall Vision for the JAAP?

Yes

Q3.2 Do the objectives set out above cover the key requirements from the area?

Yes

Q3.3 Are there any other additional objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?

Yes â€" the need for higher level of skilled jobs and more highly remunerated employment within south east Essex creating less dependency on London (city) jobs and retaining home grown talent

Q4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?

LSA has to be allowed to develop to become a regional airport for internal UK and west and southern European flights. This will then enable the sustainability and expansion of aero maintenance and servicing and other associated sectors capable of providing higher skilled jobs. It will also act as an external sign poster for south east Essex on UK and European map and act as a catalyst for further improving the external image of south east Essex and encouraging both potential inward investing businesses, visitors and new employees and new residents to view this area as the place to be

Q4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?

To be fully effective it has to become a regional airport coupled with sustaining/ expanding aero maintenance sector thereby stimulating supply chain and cluster sector business development including creative industries, leisure and tourism

Q4.3 What role should the JAAP play in supporting wider employment growth in the sub-region?

It has to be predicated on maximising the benefits of having a regional airport â€" Chelmsford, Basildon, Thurrock, Colchester (to mention a few) do not have an airport â€" it is our USP including a 7 mile coastline â€" use it or loose it. Southend/ Rochford have so few sites suitable for employment growth but it will not maximise LSA's site potential by letting it exist with present level of low level of flight activity, (indeed it would whither away and cease to exist) and rely on industrial estate expansion solely, which would not be forthcoming without the USP of an active regional airport. It would just be perceived as another industrial estate at an end of the line location.

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

Definitely, yes for reasons stated above and rail connectivity that will be integrally linked to the airport. However local road improvements need to be in place to support sustainability of such growth

Q4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?

Yes provided that road and rail improvements are delivered and appropriate inward investment marketing is undertaken

Q4.6 Are there additional options to consider?

None

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

Yes, there should be realignment to maximise the usage of land for employment purposes and also importantly for open spaces

Q4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? What are the priority areas?

The opportunity should be taken to create better quality open spaces in more accessible locations embracing Green Grid and Parklands ambitions

Q4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?

Increasing pressure on transport networks and therefore necessary to maximise usage of rail for air passengers/ employees and improve local road infrastructure. Also need to restrict night time flight activity to minimise any potential noise level impact on local residents

Q4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?

Maximise usage of rail and improve quality of local road linkages and bus services


Q4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?

By encouraging employers located within JAAP area to incentivise/ encourage employees to car share, use public transport, cycle

Q4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?

Yes

Q4.13 Are there any areas that should be added or removed? Why?

None

Q5.1 Which is your preferred Scenario for the future of the Southend Airport area?

Scenario 3 â€" anything less will result in loosing a catalyst for developing a vibrant employment centre involving high skilled jobs plus local supply chain benefits and additionally high profile external sign poster and improved image creator for south east Essex

Q5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?

It is contingent on improvement to local road links and bus services

Q5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?

None

We need to see rail connections and better facilities in place in time for the 2012 Olympics at Southend Airport - obviously this woudl only generate substantial revenue if combined with additional runway length.

Apologies for late response and hand written reply.

To make things easier to read I have listed my answers on the following pages 1 to 4.

Having just heard about the new plans proposed for the Airport I fully realise that these comments may arrive too late, however:

I am appalled to think that the Council could even consider the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane as a step in the right direction as suggested in the last option in the very, very low key consultation being offered.

The extra traffic that would have to be diverted onto the already overused A127 would cause even more congestion and pollution, waste of time and in these times a waste of energy.

Surely the fact that to increase the length of the runway for larger aircraft use would once again put the church in a difficult situation with eventual closure by some obscure rule from Brussels, by then too late to object.

As a regular user of Eastwoodbury Lane I am in favour of leaving things as they are, the thought that more passengers through the Airport would only add to the extra burden on our infrastructure, even more employment as suggested would cause problems with less road to carry all the extra traffic, some might use the proposed new station but not everyone lives in the West of Southend, cost is another factor in using rail.

Perish the thought but should the later option be passed why not consider a tunnel under any runway as at Heathrow, too expensive I hear, but if money is available for the daft idea of expansion include it!

Having had very little time to study the document, I make the following comments.

1. At this time of global climate threat, the endeavour should be to reduce aircraft useage in common with other sources of resource depletion and pollution. If the national strategy was to share the benefits and disbenefits fairly between all airports this would be a different scenario.

2. The whole ethos of the document seems to be to create a situation where there is a call or need for airport expansion in an artificial manner, rather than for this to arise naturally if needed.

3. Unless attention is drawn to the increased noise (and other pollution) footprint which will result from increased airport expansion, residents may be misled at this stage into believing that good will result from such proposals without realising the implications.

4. There is no guarantee that providing space and buildings will result in creased trade and employment - the 'seedbed' initiatives which have taken place have not a conspicuous success in this regard.

5. In particular, the document suggests that provision of office accommodation will be attractive, but there are already offices within easy reach of the airport which are being converted to residential use due to lack of demand.

It is appreciated that there is pressure upon local authorities to develop coming from government via the "Thames Gateway" which, in itself is flawed, creating an increase in the population of an already overcrowded area of the country.

Having been alerted to the existence of the above document via an article in last week's free newspaper, and after obtaining a copy from your office, I am appalled that proposals which could have far reaching effects on those who live within the area under scrutiny seem to have been a matter of some secrecy - most people I have spoken to in the short time since receiving the report have no knowledge of this report. My grandparents bought this house when it was built in 1934, it has been my home for 61 years, and I believe that I and all other households surrounding the airport - plus those affected by the flightpaths - should at least have had the courtesy of some communication, if not the whole report, back in June when apparently the document was produced as the impact of certain scenarios - if adopted - will have a major effect on us.

Unfortunately I have been left with little time to read the 100 page report properly but I quickly want to record my initial reactions. Whilst appreciating the need for planning, progress and change, I do oppose any significant change to the Airport mainly because of its unsuitable site in the midst of a high density populated area which has totally inadequate road infrastructures both locally and nationally. Certainly until actual improvements to road communications are in place with consequent improvements to traffic flow, no Airport expansion decisions should be contemplated and definitely not initiated.

With the accessibility of City, Stansted and Gatwick Airports, together with the predicted economic and environmental issues concerning fuels and emissions, I do not share the view that Southend Airport has a significant regional role to play in developing passenger traffic for the future and do not believe there will be a significant market to justify and sustain increased further commercial flights out of Southend.

I am totally opposed to the change in status of any surrounding green belt land because of the population density in this area, and I am particularly concerned about the probability of any such re-designation leading to the development of the present green belt areas into further industrial and residential zones.

I am also concerned for the plight of St Laurence & All Saints Church, its isolation from parishioners should the runway stretch of Eastwoodbury Lane be closed, and the Church's future with the added noise and pollution that any expansion of the Airport would involve.

As this huge and important issue is debated and developed in future, I would ask that more priority is given to keeping taxpayers properly informed so that we all have a better chance of responding with our views before key decisions are taken.

I would like to take this opportunity to register my opposition to any development of the airport that will increase the current flight movements at Southend Airport.

In my opinion the airport is not ideally located geographically to operate as a modern airport with totally inadequate infrastructure support that does not even come close to a motorway junction for cars, which would be the mode of transport preferred by most travellers to get to and from the airport. Apart from this difficulty for all road users either trying to get to the airport or for locals going about their daily business in that vicinity, the noise nuisance for residents in Leigh generated by more frequent aircraft movements will also be raised to unreasonable levels.

Ultimately but unlikely, I would like to see the site redeveloped but in a manner that does not include an airport at all.

Thank you for sending me a copy of the above document. I regret I have not been able to give the amount of consideration to it that I would have liked but, as you know, I only became aware of its existence as the result of the item in last Friday's (1st August) issue of the Southend Standard.

My comments relate directly to the list of questions in its Appendix A and are from the standpoint of a resident whose quality of life hinges on the outcome of the Council's deliberations. I am frankly surprised and not a little disappointed that residents like ourselves have yet to hear anything from the Council itself on the matter.

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.

I wish to state my objection to any expansion of Southend Airport.

This means option 1 is my preference I believe my objection is based upon the following:

Increased noise.
The flight corridor extension over residential areas and schools.
Increased air pollution in a town that has above average respiratory problems according the the local NHS Trust.
Any extension would destroy Eastwoodbury Lane, one that maybe over 1000 yeasrs old and is a landscape feature found from the first mapping by Andre and Chapman 1777 and little changed till the 1920's and the small holdings act post 1914/18.
All other options would encroach upon urban green open space south of the lane, some farmed and some parkland with wildlife meadows with reptiles. Further there is "the traditional orchard with a Biodiversity Action Plan cover from SBC and with the former as signatory to EEC the same. Also a public footpath.
The status and origin of the above green area was it offset when Tesco and RBS development occurred and transfer of land from ECC to SBC.
This is an unnecessary airport development given the public transport link with Stansted almost hourly initiated by BAA. Combine this with the present ongoing fuel crisis the future of air travel becomes precarious especially with quick turn around no frills flight companies quickly drop flight connection.
This process of consultation itself has not been easily accessible, difficult website access and pathways, newspaper articles with no how to process indicated to enable preference registration.
No indication with 3 options for extension with the peripheral land use charges.
No indication of the independence of any analysis of noise, air and environmental impacts.
The lack of proactive consultation to enable people to understand and ease option preference making, when the public reaction to this initial phase will be quoted at a later date as a satisfactory response.
Finally I would request acknowledgement of your receipt of this objection to JAAP please.

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.

I hold two totally contrasting views with regard to the proposed expansion of the airport.

On the one hand I have no objection to Southend's expansion in itself. The airport is, in my view, an asset to the area, but like so many aspects of society it cannot simply maintain the status quo. If the airport is to continue to play a part in the cultural and economic future of this area it really does have to expand and regenerate. I live close to the airport, the flight path passes a hundred yards to the north of us, and the thought of increased usage, and even night flights, bothers me not at all. Aircraft are getting quieter all the time.

However, on the other hand I feel the time has come to put a stop to further increases in air travel overall. Whilst moderate expansion for Southend is proposed, what is happening at the three major London airports is taking things much too far. The concept of unlimited, very cheap air travel may seem attractive, but it brings with it a great number of unpleasant side effects. These incluse more crowded air space with the potential for major disasters, vastly increased pollution, major inroads into fossil fuel usage and finally severe congestion on all modes of surrounding land travel.

Thus, whilst not objecting to Southend's plans, I do object to the universal and widespread increases in air travel generally.

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.

I am writing to formally object to the plans to extend the runway at Southend-on-Sea Airport.

I believe that the proposed levels of aircraft movements and increase in aircraft size using the airport will pose a significant detrimental environmental impact to local residents such as myself on the Marine Estate.

In my opinion with Stansted, Gatwick and City Airport all in close proximity the need for further airport development is not proven.

What is clear is that the already overstretched road and rail infrastructure would be totally unable to cope with the increase in capacity.

The proposed new station would not it seems be matched with increased train capacity and the over crowded conditions already experienced by commuters would be significantly worsened.

The only way to deal with the increased activity at the airport would be for major road developments which would increase noise and air pollution for local residents.

The council should not approve these plans as the increases proposed are detrimental to the vase majority of the residents that they are supposed to represent.

My objections are all the same as I have written about before. Pollution, noise and air.

Environmental aspects of the glide path over 5 schools inability of access roads to cope with traffic increases along the A127.

Safety with only 1 runway graded as Group 3.

Common sense of an increase to traffic movements within RED 1, the heaviest air corridor in the world.

Maplin should have taken a place rather than new runways at Stansted and LHR.

I live approximately 1.5km from runway, directly on the glide path.

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.