5.5.1 Details

I object to the proposed high growth of Southend Aiport. As well as my previous objections as we live in the current flight path, I can not see how having another London City Aiport or mini Stanstead in Southend is going to be realistic in terms of its location. The roads into Southend are congested enough and I don't see how the building of a railway station is going to entice City travellers and holiday makers to the airport when City Aiport is extremely convenient for short haul trips and Stanstead has the potential and existing infrastructure to expand.

strongly object

Any extension of the runway will lead to larger aircraft and more flights over a densely populated part of Southend with a consequent increase in noise. I am also concerned about the large number of schools under the flightpath. The quoted figure of 40 passenger flights a day is I feel incorrect. If you check the Southampton website 1.97m passengers a year gives 128 flights a day.

Let the airport get back to where it used to be, offering a meaningful range of flights to the local population, to places they want to go to.
Technology has moved on greatly since the original heyday of the airport, aircraft are much quieter and more fuel efficient than in the 1960's and 1970's, and will continue to develop in this way.
This option 3 is supported by Government policy to make the most use of existing runways, and also Thames Gateway and EEDA policies.

The real, long-term benefits do not justify the impact. There are two airports close by at Stanstead and London City.

In Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, the reference to Boeing 737 aircraft may be confusing as some models of these could not operate from a 1799 metre runway with an economic load. It would be better to refer to aircraft of between 100 and 149 seats, such as the Airbus A319 and the Embraer 195.

The reference to fixed base operators may also confuse as this is usually used for business and general aviation. It would be better to refer to airlines would base aircraft at the Airport.

The second sentence of the paragraph beginning 'Runway' should be replaced by 'The benefit of this extension would be that aircraft could operate with economic loads on longer range routes, for example to southern Europe'.

In the description of the New Railway Station there are references to the Strategic Rail Authority and One Great Eastern, which should be replaced by the Department for Transport and National Express East Anglia respectively.

The Arup study referred to in our response to 5.2 forecasts a total of 2,870 jobs in 2020, a net increase of 1,700 rather than the 1,180 mentioned under the heading Direct airport employment. The present value of the economic benefits between now and 2030 would be £763 million, over £500 more than the other scenarios.

The figures of 1500 arrivals and 1500 departures noted under the heading Aircraft and passenger forecasts relate to an annual figure of 1 mppa, not 2 mppa.

In Issue 2 it is suggested that there would be 3,900 jobs in the new employment areas. As noted above, a substantial proportion of these would be aviation-related, attracted to sites adjacent to an airport where there is a reasonable selection of air services available, as would be the case in this scenario.

In Issue 3 a strategic revision of the Green Belt boundary is discussed but Figure 5.5 shows the arbitrary boundary across the runway remaining.

In Issue 4 under the Improvements heading, the need for improvements to public transport, cycling or walking should be noted as well as to the roads and that the opportunities for such improvements will be much greater with the higher levels of development.

I oppose major expansion due to the negitive impact to the local area. ie transport issues flight noise.

This allows for growth whilst protecting habitats.

C and S Associates agree with the identification of site i, the Brickworks site, for mixed use development provided that this development is residential led to enable redevelopment, which is likely to include significant clean up costs.

This site has been identified as a proposed 'area for change' in Section 4.6 of this document and designation of the site for mixed use residential and employment development will enable the site to be redeveloped, providing benefits such as enhancing the visual quality of the area, environmental benefits and assisting in enabling Rochford to meet the PPS3 requirement to identify a 15 year housing land supply.


C and S Associates agree with the proposal to amend the green belt boundary as this will be needed to enable the redevelopment of the Brickworks site.

The green belt boundary can be amended to enable beneficial development of the Brickworks site to take place without compromising any adjoining green belt. The site can be provided with defensible boundaries which will afford future protection of the surrounding green belt, should it remain, and so development will not threaten the function and purpose of the green belt.

Issue 4 - Any scheme for the replacement of Eastwoodbury Lane should include sufficient off road provision for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.