5.5 Scenario 3: High Growth

If this area is going to have an airport, it should be a fully functional airport, an airport offering a range of destinations. This will encourage businesses to the area, both in and around the airport perimeter and should also see a significant growth in employment opportunities.
Over the past 30 years or so, numerous opportunities have been missed to highlight and use the benefits a thriving regional airport can bring to the area. This may be the last opportunity to make best use of Southend Airport. I hope this will not be another missed opportunity.

sir/madam,

I strongly oppose any expansion of southend airport, on the grounds of environmental damage.

I find it strange that in a time when the government is making bold statements about cutting C02 imitions that it would sanction the expansion of any airport, let alone Southend due to its sensitive location to wildlife, conservation and green belt areas.

We are constantly being asked to do our bit for the environment, indeed next month rochford council starts it new rubbish recycling programme wereby we will be expected to filter our rubbish into three different bins, I haven't got a problem with this because I want to do my bit, I just feel there are double standards going on.

Increasing air traffic into and out of Southend will be a disaster to both the environment and the well being of everyone living in this area due to noise, pollution and more damage to the ozone.

THIS EXPANSION MUST NOT GO AHEAD!


kind regards

d j parrott

I feel sure that both the airport improvement and the consultation will be of advantage to S E Essex.

As residents we shall have some degree of "ownership" over the expansion scheme.

The major transport links in the area will obviously have to be improved which is a good and necessary outcome.

Increased choice of destinations from Southend/Rochford airport will be a great advantage to our area.

Employment opportunities will also be enhanced.

Regards,

John Jefferies.

Hockley Parish Plan Group would like to register the following comments regarding the London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan, based on the views of Hockley residents as expressed in the Hockley Parish Plan.

'Any future development and expansion at Southend Airport and the surrounding area, in terms of flights, passengers, employment and businesses, must not create additional noise or air quality pollution in the Parish of Hockley, caused primarily by noisier / bigger aircraft, additional flights or new flightpaths. Any increase in traffic and transportation on the highways in the Hockley area, caused by the development and expansion, must be matched by improvements to both roads and related infrastructure.'

Regards

Tim Gleadall
Vice Chairman
Hockley Parish Plan Group

This would not be acceptable.

Hi

My name is Kevin Chinnery and I live locally on Manners Way. I was born in a house right opposite Southend airport. From a boy to man I have followed the progress or lack of it, concerning the airport. I would like to pass my thoughts on the current situation.

I am aware of the potential railway link and hotel and all that headline grabbing news. The airport website is quite informative and the local papers do their best to keep the public up to speed. It's like buying yesterdays news, a bit like watching the lack of progress with the Pier, it's both frustrating and annoying seeing consultations and councils changing but no real progress.

This time around I must confess with the airport unlike the pier there feels a real genuine opportunity for massive change and all for the better. The hotel, the railway, the job creation, the infrastructure......all good all positive and all massive progress for the prosperity of the area and Southend/Rochford in general.

There may be disruption and there may be noise and even pollution but all of these have legislation to contain and maintain standard. So let the clip board negatives have their say because the law will protect their issues. What they must not be allowed to do is to stand in the way of this golden opportunity for the development of all that is proposed.

Further to my own view, my mother lives directly opposite the main entrance to the airport......literally neighbours to the traffic and noise. She is elderly and getting frail but her faculties are still alert including her sight and hearing. She has no objection to all that is proposed and links her views to the immediate neighbours.

I was married in the church at the runway edge and I am relieved and delighted that it will remain as changes to this would have been both offensive and outrageous!

So if you have not gathered, I am in favour of the airport development and applaud the council for it's current efforts to succeed. I trust this will remain the case and together lets get the job done!

Thank you for taking the time to read my notes and I await any reply that you see fit.

Kind regards

Kevin Chinnery

This would not be acceptable. In my opinion this cannot be justifed as this area.

I believe that this option offers the best future for the prosperity of this area, both in direct employment and related activities. It also has the benefit of making best use of the existing facilities and can be seen as a creditable alternative to many plans being put forward by the government for additional runways.

Deeply offensive to residents.

strongly object

Environmental impact unacceptable

Unfortunately you would only find out how noisy this scenario would be when completed. then it would be too late to complain about the flight every few minutes an certain times of day.

I believe this scenario would be the worst one for the area. The amount of noise from aircraft and increased traffic would have a detrimental effect on the whole of the Southend- Rochford area.

Dear Sir

Proposed Expansion of Southend Airport

In response to your letter of July 9th I have the following observations to make regarding the above. These are the reasons I am against the expansion.

1. Noise - Somebody, I don't know who, stated in the local paper that no increase in noise level would be experienced. This is arrant nonsense. Having worked for some time in close proximity to Heathrow I can vouch for the fact that a modern jet airliner generates noise on take-off that is mind numbing. With all doors and windows closed normal conversation is impossible, not to mention the vibration created. No account appears to have been taken of the massive increase in number of flights.

I was involved in contracts at nearby Brentford and Stanwell which include treble glazing and the application of external sound insulating material to the walls of houses affected. All to no avail.

2. Pollution - The same person also stated that no increase in pollution would occur. Once again drawing on my experience at Heathrow and from conversations with people who lived here when more long distance flights took place this is totally incorrect and once again the increase in the number of flights is not considered.

3. Danger - All areas surrounding the airport are densely built up. In addition to which we now have the Tesco and RBS buildings right in the flight path.

This does not apply to Stansted, Gatwick or even Heathrow which have large open tracts of land around them.

4. Alternative Airports - When the Maplin project was first mooted many years ago this was eventually discarded on various grounds, one of which was the interference with the environment of some rare sea birds, none of which I have ever seen. Other reasons were the difficulty of improving the infrastructure and transport links.

Maplin, of course was by far the best choice, having none of the problems mentioned above. This lesson can be reinforced studying Nice airport in the south of France, where the planes take off and land over the sea.

Instead the decision was made to upgrade Stansted, which was a simple grass strip when I visited it in 1955, and the Maplin project cancelled for ever.

Gatwick and Stansted are less than an hours' drive from this area and as far as I am concerned they dispense with the need for another major airport serving London.

4. Diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane - Presumably this would be via Rochford. Traffic through this town would be increased enormously at the same time depriving commuters of an alternative to the grossly overused A127, laid down in 1933 and hardly modified since. Therefore far more traffic would be generated with no plans to improve the totally inadequate road network, indeed the existing system would be downgraded by this diversion.

5. New Railway Station - Why do we need a new Railway Station when Rochford is less than a mile from the airport? Shuttle buses could be laid on to ferry passengers to and from the Terminal.

6. S.T.O.L. - Occassionally I see this type of aircraft taking off from Southend Airport. They are much quieter than the large jets and of course do not require an extended runway. These have been used with great success at the London City Airport for many years. Why not increase the use of S.T.O.L. aircraft?

7. Devaluation of surrounding properties - This will occur if the expansion takes place for the reasons given above.

Trust Links is a local charity that uses horticulture as the centre of its work with people who have mental ill health. We use our gardens and also St Lawrence Orchard that we maintain on behalf of Southend Council.


The Orchard site is especially important to us as it :

- gives a wider range of opportunities to our clients
- is very useful as a peaceful and tranquil place and an entirely different experience than our more bustling community garden

It is also important to the local ecology, forming part of Southend biodiversity strategy. The maintenance is deliberately low impact in order to encourage bio diversity.

A number of local organisation also use the orchard for relaxation and study of nature.

The low and medium growth options would appear to leave this site unaffected but the high growth option involves re-routing of Eastwoodbury Lane and would appear to threaten the future of the orchard.

Any growth would cause road/air noise and congestion.

White elephant. Real, long-term benefits do not justify this scenario, given its negative impacts.

I feel that this is a great opportunity for the prosperity of Southend which cannot be passed by. The jobs it will create and the income for the town will be an asset and benefit for the area.

I feel that it would be a positive image for Southend. Generating more jobs and income for the town can only have a positive effect and I feel it is an opportunity that should not be overlooked.

Expansion of this magnitude will have a catastrophic negative effect on the well being of local residents, communities, infrastructure. I would only wish to see very minimal expansion.

I am against any significant expansion as this will have a negative effect on the quality of living for most residents. In addition to this, there will be all manner of knock-on implications. A high probability of serious road congestion, pollution, disruption. Southend is geographically placed at 'the end of the line' in a geograpical 'dead end' due to it being bordered on 3 sides by water. Therefore there is only one direction in and out of Southend and that is from the west along the A127 and perhaps the A13. Anyone who travels these roads daily as I do will know that any passengers will have to avoid driving to Southend between 7:30am and 9:15am, or 3:30pm to 6:30 pm Monday to Friday. Also avoiding Bank Holiday weekends, and any sunny weekends and any days that Southend United are playing at home or they WILL miss their flights. Most people will NOT travel down by train. The location of Southend means it will have a small catchment for passengers, realistically people north of Chelmsford or west of Brentwood are most likely going to go to Stanstead which is a much easy journey with better connections. If the airport expands significantly I believe it will end up being a white elephant a few years on when people start deserting it. Allow it to continue as it is, or do something radically different on the land if the Airport claims it is not viable.

This option might create the greatest capacity for more airline services to more destinations. The airport claims to be "London" Southend airport and should therefore be as busy as Gatwick and should relieve Heathrow and Stansted. In addition to extending one runway could you not create a second runway running diagonally away from the railway and the existing runway across the surrounding fields. This increased capacity might enable major airlines to operate out of this airport.

previous text should say object to high growth option

SOUTHEND AIRPORT JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN CONSULTATION
EAST WOOD CHURCH


The SPAB is a national amenity society which, under the Planning Acts, must be notified of all applications to demolish in whole or part any listed buildings in England and Wales.

We were strongly opposed to a previous proposal to move Grade I listed Eastwood Church from its site adjoining the present runway. We welcome the JAAP assurance that any development of the airport will "ensure the protection of areas and places sensitive to change." We therefore argue that it is essential that in looking at the options for expansion, the location of the church should remain sacrosanct. If it provides an obstacle either now or potentially in the future, the runway, taxiways, and airport buildings should be aligned or realigned to leave it undisturbed.

This is the only option that will benifit both the Airport and the local area.

I think scenario 3 is the only option that provides a realistic chance for Southend to fully develop its potential. Both the development of the surrounding area and expansion of the airport will create an abundance of employment opportunities and will promote a positive economic impact for Southend.

As above

Scenario 3 is the best choice.

Although this scenario is titled High Growth, it could also be titled Re-launch of Airline Services from Southend Airport, to indicate that it is the only scenario which would credibly enable such services to be operated.

Although the runway take off distance would be extended to 1799 metres, this scenario would also meet the recommendation by the CAA to achieve the extension of the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) at the north east end of the runway, thereby further enhancing safety standards.

Figure 5.4 still shows the Green Belt boundary arbitrarily across the Airport, even though the text speaks of a strategic revision of the boundary.

The key to Figure 5.4 shows areas iii and x as 'Airport Boundary Extension'. Part of iii and all of x are already Airport leased areas and x is an existing RESA/ILS area.

Figure 5.4 shows a Park & Ride location but more information is needed as to its purpose and method of operation.

We would not support this option