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

I think the airport has so much potential and to keep it as it is is a waste when it could bring so much to area.

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.

The priority is for better bus transport expecially easy-access buses and for improved frequency in the outlying areas. Joined-up cycle paths would be nice, as a cyclist I have had several near misses with cars.

Cut the traffic, better public transpot

cheaper, more frequent public transport

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

A127 - cannot take increase in traffic and not enough room for increase in road capacity. Infrastructure will not allow (progress road onwards [towards southend]) If increased capacity allowed, residential properties greatly affected.

The transport needs of the growing airport can be fully dealt with by the proposals in the Airport's Master Plan and Surface Access Strategy. These involve a new rail station, travel planning for staff, improved arrangements for public transport, cycling and walking, taxis and adequate car parking. Arrangements for travel associated with the growth in employment in the areas outside the Airport boundary should be similarly covered by comprehensive transport strategies.

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.

A major transport priority should be a strategic review of the highway infrastructure in South East Essex. There are already significant over capacity issues relating to the A13/A127 as well as many of the A127 junctions within Southend's boundary.The future expansion of the airport/ business park will add further stress on this infrastructure.Increased traffic pressure at the planned developmentS at Fossetts Farm will also need detailed assessment and consideration. Investment in all alternative methods of transport,ie rail,SERT,bus,cycling and walking,will also be important as well as consideration of possible park and ride facilities on the A127 between Southend and Rayleigh.

provide the railway station at Warner's Bridge that was implicitly promised in exchange for the granting of planning permission for an out of town retail warehouse park on airport land

I am against any expansion of the airport, I feel that the airport should be closed altogether and the land could be used for a new hospital to replace Southend General with adequate parking and auxiliary research facilities and any further residential development which is needed within the area.

If expansion of the airport is so beneficial why have the residents around Heathrow, Gatwick and particularly Stansted been so anti any expansion within their airports? Stansted is only 45 minutes by car from here and within an hour by public transport. With the continued decline in air transport, as proved by the figures for the last six months at Stansted, I fail to see any need for the expansion of Southend airport.

At the moment Southend airport is used as a dustbin for obsolete aircraft to come in to be serviced which are banned from other UK airports.

The road system throughout Hockley, Rochford, Rayleigh and Southend is struggling and an expansion of the airport would only compound the problem.

Obviously any expansion would increase noise pollution and CO2 emissions.

Improvements to roads. More cycle paths. Better public transport and encouraging park and rides.

First class cheap public transport.

Thank you for your consultation on the above document. Having reviewed the document I wish to make the following comments in response to the questions posed within the document:

Q 2.2
The issue of land contamination in the Airport study area should not be overlooked. There is the potential for contamination to be present in areas around the site where development/redevelopment may take place. Development should be seen as an opportunity to remediate land and bring it back into effective use in accordance with PPS23.

Water use/resource and water quality are also omitted from the document. Growth of Southend airport and associated development will place additional pressures upon water resources, wastewater treatment and disposal and surface water run off. Large scale development offers opportunities for initiatives for water harvesting and water recycling systems as part of the overall drainage and water management strategy at a site wide level. To achieve the Government's aim of sustainable development, more efficient use of water in new and existing developments is essential. Within the drainage strategy there are opportunities to improve the water quality discharged from the site.

There is no clear steer on waste issues during or after construction. We would wish to see a commitment to high rates of recycling of demolition materials and measures to incorporate recycled materials within the construction. We would like to see a commitment in this development to minimise construction waste at the design stage. We would also like to see those involved in this development commit to measures to minimise waste to landfill and avoid disposal of unused materials.

The implications of the Water Framework Directive must be understood and incorporated within the development of the airport if it may affect the local waterbodies. The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is a major opportunity to improve the whole water environment and promote the sustainable use of water. It applies to all surface water bodies, including lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal waters out to one mile from low water, and to artificial waters such as canals. It also applies to groundwater.

Q 3.2
The Objectives discuss 'Ensuring a high quality environment for residents' with explicit reference to noise pollution and protection of green space but the wider environment is not considered in the objectives. The importance of improving and enhancing greenspace and biodiversity, limiting and adapting to climate change, reducing flood risk, minimising waste, improving land quality, improved water quality are not addressed. This objective could be expanded to consider protecting and enhancing the whole environment.

Q 4.4
Any future employment growth in the JAAP should be directed away from the Flood Risk areas, as identified on the Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps.

Q 4.8
Every opportunity should be taken to protect and enhance any existing habitats and protected species present in the JAAP area. The creation of habitat will help contribute towards local targets, eg. Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and meet the requirements of PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological conservation.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can help reduce the impact of flooding arising from development. SuDS schemes can help reduce surface water runoff rates and volumes whilst also addressing water quality issues, if implemented during development of sites around the airport.

Q 4.9
One of the greatest long-term challenges affecting development of the airport is that of climate change; both the need to adapt to a changing climate and limit any possible future change.

Adaptation to the already inevitable change could involve choices such as providing new open space and green infrastructure that can provide urban cooling, SuDS and conserve and enhance biodiversity.

We want to see greater emphasis on managing demand for water, as well as using water more efficiently to help manage pressures on water resources. Climate change is expected to reduce the amount of water available, particularly in the South East, whilst, at the same time, we continue to use even more water.

We need to manage biodiversity in different ways in the face of climate change. Whilst making sure our existing protected sites are resilient to climate change, we need to move to landscape scale approaches to managing habitats to help encourage the movement of species as the climate changes.

While limitation of future climate changes can involve the highest possible level of resource and energy efficiency to reduce emissions. Further information is available in PPS1 supplement: Planning and Climate Change.

We support using larger amounts of renewable energy from a wider variety of sources, helping limit greenhouse gas emissions. Development should seek to secure the highest viable resource and energy efficient standards and maximise sustainable transport options.

Q 4.10
Improvements in public transport and more sustainable transport links are welcomed.

Q 4.12
Some of the specific areas of change listed in this document have significant environmental constraints that may limit development. Comments are made below in relation to each of the sites:

ii) Part of this areas falls within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk), in the areas adjacent to the river to the north of this section. According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
iii) The entire area of this site falls within Flood Zone 3 (high risk). Development in Flood Zone 3 must be subject to the sequential test of PPS25, to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
iv) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe. Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site.
v) The Biodiversity and habitat value of this area must be assessed when considering this site for redevelopment. PPS9 promotes the need to protect and enhance biodiversity during redevelopment.
vi) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1, (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located with in the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.
vii) No constraints
viii) No constraints
ix) Land adjacent to the railway has the potential to be contaminated. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.
x) No constraints
xi) Again, part of this site fall within Flood Zones 2 (medium risk) and 3 (high risk). According to PPS25 development in the flood zones should be avoided. Use of the site as football pitches/sports recreation areas forms an acceptable use within the flood zone. If development in these areas is proposed, the sequential test must be applied to demonstrate that there are no other reasonably available sites in lower flood zones that are appropriate for development. As part of this site does fall within Flood Zone 1 (low risk), it is unlikely that the sequential test will be able to demonstrate that development must be located within the medium and high risk zones. If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe. Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site.

Q5.1 5.3: The following comments are made in relation to each potential growth scenario.

5.2 Scenario 1: Low Growth

Under the section of Environmental issues Flood risk is classed as Medium. This is incorrect. Part of Aviation Way Business Park falls within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks.

5.3 Scenario 2(a): Medium Growth

Business park extension to the North of Aviation Way is appropriate as there are no significant environmental constraints. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can manage surface water runoff to reduce the risk of flooding and also create areas of open/green space that contribute to increased habitat and biodiversity, creating green links between sites.

Under the section of Environmental issues Flood risk is classed as Medium. This is incorrect. Part of Aviation Way Business Park falls within Flood Zone 3, the high risk flood zone.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks. This will help improve the water quality of Rayleigh and Eastwood Brooks. Enhancement of water features should also be considered in line with the Draft Sustainability report accompanying this JAAP.

Environmental enhancements to site (v), (ix) (ii) and (iii) are encouraged.

Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.

5.4 Scenario 2 (b): Medium Growth Aviation Cluster

Area (iii) to the west of the current airport ancillary area is entirely located in Flood Zone 3. The sequential test (PPS25) must demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites within lower flood risk areas before development areas can be allocated within the high risk flood zone.

Extension of the Airport Boundary to include a field adjoining the north maintenance zone takes in an area of high risk Flood zone. Any extension to this boundary would give the impression that development in this area is appropriate. This is not the case. All development should be directed to the lowest flood zones first. The aim of PPS25 is to steer all new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (PPS25 para D1). Only where there are no alternative sites within lower flood risk zone (applying the sequential test) would development be appropriate. However, within the airport boundary and the JAAP study area there are considerable areas of Flood Zone 1 that would be more appropriate for development.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks.

Environmental enhancements to the area are encouraged. Existing habitats should be protected and enhanced where possible. In line with the draft Sustainability Appraisal, a comprehensive ecological impact and management study should be commissioned to identify relevant issues for the site.

Redevelopment of any existing business park areas should take into account the potential risk of contamination from previous uses of the site. In accordance with PPS23, remediation must be undertaken if any area is shown to be likely to pose a threat to controlled waters.

5.5 Scenario 3: High Growth

MRO: Area (iii) to the west of the current airport ancillary area is entirely located in Flood Zone 3. The sequential test (PPS25) must demonstrate that there are no reasonably available alternative sites within lower flood risk areas before development can be allocated within the high risk flood zone.

Extension of the Airport Boundary to include a field adjoining the north maintenance zone takes in an area of high risk Flood zone. Any extension to this boundary would give the impression that development in this area is appropriate. This is not the case. All development should be directed to the lowest flood zones first. The aim of PPS25 is to steer all new development to areas at the lowest probability of flooding (PPS25 para D1). Only where there are no alternative sites within a lower flood risk zone (applying the sequential test) would development be appropriate. However, within the airport boundary and the JAAP study area there are considerable areas of Flood Zone 1 that would be more appropriate for development.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising from aviation fuel leaks. The level of pollution incidences should not be allowed to increase. Measures can be incorporated into development to reduce the risk of a pollution event occurring.

The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can manage surface water runoff to reduce the risk of flooding and also create areas of open/green space that contribute to increased habitat and biodiversity, creating green links between sites.

Environmental enhancements to the area, including Eastwood Brook are encouraged. In line with the draft Sustainability Appraisal, a comprehensive ecological impact and management study should be commissioned to identify relevant issues for the site.

In the draft Sustainability Appraisal this option scores negatively against many environmental objectives. The above comments should be taken on board, particularly with respect to enhancement and mitigation measures to ensure that the final plan scores positively against the environmental objectives.

Draft Sustainability Appraisal

In the comparison of each scenario against the environmental objectives, flood risk is given little consideration. Many of the areas for intensification of development of new development fall within the high flood risk areas (not medium as stated).

According to PPS25 new development in flood risk areas should be avoided, therefore these scenarios would score negatively against a flood risk objective.

Development in low flood risk areas should also seek to reduce the impact of flooding arising from development by appropriate management of surface water runoff.

p6 Environment section does not include Water Resource, nor does it address Waste Management. Climate Change should be expanded to include other measures in 4.9 above.

Medium and High Growth Scenario opportunities to use site wide initiatives for heat and Power (CHP), waste management, surface water management should be considered under these scenarios. Large scale development provides greater opportunities for a co-ordinated approach to many issues.

SA Recommendations Within this section we would welcome a commitment to level 4 or above of the code for sustainable homes and BREEAM Excellent rating for commercial and industrial buildings. We would also welcome a commitment to produce % of energy from renewable sources for the site.

Evidence Base report

For information it is likely that a South Essex Water Cycle Study & Strategic Flood Risk Assessment update will be commissioned shortly. Should these studies go ahead, the results should feed into the Sustainability Assessment report.

Flood Zone 3 is classified as the high risk flood zone, see PPS25 table D1. This definition of the flood zones should be used for planning purposes. The reports refer to the flood risk being classified as medium, this is probably taken from the definitions used on the Environment Agency website that is used for household insurance purposes. These definitions are not to be used for planning purposes.

The JAAP should produce plans to reduce car traffic by increasing coach/bus, rail, and other low pollution modes of transport.
No steps should be taken that will result in an increase in private car use.

The building of the new railway station is very important to the commercial success of the airport. This will mean that many passengers will be able to forego the motor car. Further to this, perhaps, some thought should also be given to a dedicated coach connection to the C2C railway line, for not all will have access to the Southend - Liverpool Street line.

Connections to the A.127 have to be improved.

There should be adequate coach and bus bays and cycle parking provision should be included.

No significant development should be considered at the airport without an outer bypass route being created to relieve traffic congestion. Southend and South Essex suffers from the inadequate A127 and A13
routes.

I really dont think that our roads can cope with extra traffic! There are only 2 roads INTO Southend, and the same 2 OUT! They get congested now without the prosepct of extra traffic should the airport be extened.

Easing surface transport congestion locally and into the southend/Rochford area from the west and north. This problem is general however, not only for the JAAP.

I refer to your letter of 23rd June 2008 regarding the above joint area action plan and would like to offer the following consultation response.

Castle Point Borough Council is supportive of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Rochford District Council in their plan to prepare a joint area action plan for London Southend Airport and its Environs. As part of the Thames Gateway South Essex it is recognised that Southend is a key centre and that employment opportunities created at London Southend Airport will benefit residents of Castle Point.

It is therefore important for Castle Point that the scenario for the development for this location ensures that the airport is a major economic and employment driver within the sub-region in order to meet wider employment needs and generate wider sub-regional growth.

It is also considered important that the joint area action plan ensures good levels of accessibility to new employment oppoturnities in this location, by a range of different means of transport, with a focus on sustainability and reducing congestion.

I trust this response is of assistance to you. However, should you have any further queries regarding this consultation response please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Raffaelli using the details provided at the top of the page.

You have my full support. Please do not let blinkered people stop the needed expansion and the much needed regeneration of this has-been town!

The website was difficult to access and badly presented as a public consultation this is a shame as it does not give the public a clear view of what the options are. It seems clear to me that the decision to expand the airport has already been taken without proper considerations of the impact on the community or the environment.

The environmental consequences of expanding must be thoroughly investigated, noise pollution, fuel pollution and their effect on nature. Still, I believe that by expanding Southend this will hopefully alleviate the already overstretched Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow particularly on short haul European routes.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

Encouragement of light aviation by lowering exorbitant landing fees and parking fees.