4.6 Issue 5: JAAP 'Areas for Change'

This is too much development.

Having taken the time to read fully the 100 page document reference the proposed joint area action plan report, I would like to put forward my points of view, I hope you will do the me the same courtesy and read the following 3 pages.

2.4 Transport & Accessibility:
Bus Services: There is a bus service (No:9), which stops at the end of he Aviation Way Business Park. Your proposed moving of Eastwoodbury Lane will mean this bus going onto the A127?!!!!!
Railway: The airport should consider a coach service to the nearest railway stations. Stansted, a much larger airport seems to be able to operate with a coach service. It has already been discussed and pointed out to the airport that commuter parking is not a feasible and safe option along Southend Road.
Eastwoodbury Lane: The word critical is used in this paragraph; this would only become critical if the airport extends the runway.

There does not appear to be any mention of the existing and proposed 'sound footprint' within the document. Please can you furnish us with the current, and increases for each scenario.

The Park & Ride is shown on the diagram but no explanation it is a Park & Ride to where and for whom?!

Solutions to any increase in traffic need to be addressed before agreement to any of the options. I cannot see any such foresight having been used in this document.

A good example of traffic problems is the RBS building, which is causing parking problems and disruption on the roads surrounding it and no serious attempt at providing adequate additional transport options.

There are plenty of industrial/shopping estates in he area, namely Airports' own shopping area, Aviation Way, Laurence, Britannia Park, Temple Farm and Purdey Industrial Estate; and the currently expanding Fossett Way estate with new football ground, hotel and shopping areas to be added. The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do they want or need to increase the numbers, again it is likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.

I think proof and financial guarantees from 2/3 fixed base operators would need to be in place before any planning applications for expansion are agreed. This is particularly relevant at this time of economic constraints, ('volatility in aviation markets'-direct quote) e.g.:
Ryanair, Easyjet cutting back NOT expanding.

I include two quotes from a national newspaper this week, the first from aviation expert Doug McVitie who predicts some airlines will go bust in the coming months as they deal with the record fuel costs and a drop in consumer spending. The second regarding British Airways axing one in 20 flights in a bid to weather the economic downturn. Involving 1000's of short haul domestic, regional and European services expected to bear the brunt of the cutbacks. 6000 flights will disappear from its winter schedule with effect from October. Is it environmentally or economically sound to encourage more emissions, bearing in mind fuel costs etc.

4.3 i) Recent evidence is inferred, but no specifics given. Same as
above, there are plenty of new developments already taking place in the area.

ii) The roads are already at maximum capacity in the area.
iii) Employment growth brings more transport problems, see ii) above.

4.2 iii) Environmental Impacts removal of any green belt impacts on the environment. ('Ensuring quality of life is maintained for residents, and sustainable transport strategies are implemented to minimise traffic impacts'-direct quote) these are just words nowhere in the document does the airport show how it will be maintaining quality of life!!

4.6 The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do
they want or need to increase the numbers, again likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.
Specific areas for change listed: you mention local recreation and amenity improvements, what are they? ix) Mentions the parkway, this has already been widely discussed and the safety issues explained, in fact there have been 3 serious accidents along Southend Road in the last 3 months, this is a narrow, dangerous stretch of road which vehicles constantly speed along resulting in regular road accidents

The new car showrooms due to start operating in the Autumn along Cherry Orchard Way, we have not yet seen what impact this will have on the road infrastructure i.e.: vehicle transporters, staff and customers.

The major redirecting of Eastwoodbury Lane to join with the RBS road exiting onto the dual carriageway, pushing all traffic onto the A127 Tesco roundabout shows lack of intelligence on whosoever devised this lunatic scenario. This is actually removing the option of avoiding the A127 for motorists and public transport.

The airport should NOT be looking for any public investment, as it cannot show any guaranteed financial returns.

('In changing the character of the area funding would be attracted to promote transport and environmental projects aimed at improving the JAAP area'-direct quote) BEFORE changing the character of the area, (not for the better in my opinion) transport and environmental projects should already have been chosen and explained with AIRPORT funding already in place, as it is the airport which wishes to make the changes.

Avionics technical advancement is consistently mentioned in the document with regard to potential noise and emission reductions, thereby not having a significant effect on the local area, but there is no proof of this.
Regardless, if with technical advancement we could also assume new aircraft being produced that can utilise the existing runway length thereby saving unnecessary expense.

The airport was purchased knowing the runway limitations and I don't see why the residents or local environment should suffer to assuage their greed.

Scenario 1: Low growth (do minimum) is the preferred option as any growth allowed will be later exploited and consistently pushed for further expansion. i.e.: the parkway which was NOT included in the original new railway station planning application but once this was agreed in principal the airport immediately tried to expand the area to include commuter parking which they admitted they would need the revenue from to help finance the station, if that was so they should have been honest in the first instance and applied for parking at the same time. This was also the case with the Shopping area at the airport where the planning application stated NO food outlets and then at a later date McDonalds was given consent to operate.

Southend Area Bus User Group (SABUG) represents bus users in Rochford District, Southend Borough and Castle Point Borough.
Accordingly, our comments are restricted to public transport.
We welcome the proposed railway station. Re page 46, para. 4.5, we suggest that bus operators be encouraged to divert their services, particularly Arriva Services 7 and 8, to the new station and that a proper rail/bus interchange is provided.
Re page 49, para. ix, whilst we are content that car parking should be provided, we request that this will not be to the detriment of the rail/bus interchange.

The last sentence of the description of Area iii should read 'On one side is the Airport, on the other is an area of natural woodland habitat.'

Area x is called the Airport RESA but should be called the Airport RESA and ILS area. The use of the words 'safety zone' could be confused with Public Safety Zones and should be deleted. The second sentence should read 'Whilst no development could take place here, it would accommodate a runway extension if required.'