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

Scenario 3 is the best option to deliver all proposed improvements at Southend Airport and to provide the area with the maximum benefit in terms of employment and leisure.

nowhere in your paperwork do you seem to evaluate the development of the airport to the economic climate , currently the chief executive of Ryanair says 50 carriers will go out of business shortly and that the whole aviation industry is geared to a $60 barrel of oil whilst the current price has averaged $135 this year , passenger traffic has expanded until the moment where you seem to have already decided that after 40 years of slumbering that the airport needs to be awoken .Low level growth in these times would be best

Low growth

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.

I strongly support Scenario 3. I would expect to be an active user of expanded passenger services.

Having just read the above consultation document, I have the following comments to make:

* I agree with the development of Southend Airport as a significant passenger terminal, but would favour the 2b medium growth â€" aviation cluster scenario within the existing confines of the airport, rather than the high growth scenario 3 proposal with the extended runway.

* Both scenarios suggest an ultimate 85,500 aircraft movements equalling 3 flights per hour, but the benefit of the medium growth scenario would be the use of smaller aircraft suitable for provincial airports and fewer air transport movements. The overall environmental impact of the 2b medium growth scenario is also more acceptable than the high growth proposal.

* The assumption that the economic argument for the high growth proposal is better than for the medium growth proposal, on the basis that large Boeing 737 aircraft as used by low cost operators can be used, can be questioned because it assumes a continuing demand for large fully filled planes over and above a natural growth of slightly smaller aircraft, as generally used in provincial airports and likely to grow as smaller provincial airports open up on the European mainland.

* If both these scenarios still anticipate a 3 flights per hour scenario, I believe that the population in general, would rather those flights be of the smaller aircraft type, commonly flown out of provincial airports, rather than large passenger airliners normally flown out of major airports, i.e. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. This would also keep pollution and noise levels to a minimum, whilst supporting the development of Southend as a passenger terminal.

Regards

I have today received the report and submit my hurried comments.
The report seems to me to be a transparent attempt by the present owners to make money. Although these schemes will be avidly agreed by locals who wish for local flights this is a temporary affect and with the inevitable rises in fares will soon revert to the usual apathy,especially after the London Olympics. With the current conditions affecting all airlines and airports any grandiose such schemes are or should be considered pie in the sky.
The schemes are of course wrapped up with promises of better communications, jobs etc. to sugar the pill of permanent disruptions to existing and important transport links, noise, loss of green belt, massive overloading of road links and perhaps a new railway station by the reports own admission more of use to London commuters.
Of personal feelings best summed up I am a wheelchair user now but in the past have been a pax from Southend and have chartered Viscounts to Paris for example. The number 9 bus is a neccessity to attend St Laurence Church and the dentist in Aviation Way and the possibility of closing Eastwoodbury Lane and not serving those two mentioned places, coupled with the detrimental effect by splitting Eastwood in two is not to be contemplated.
My choice is schemes is for 1 or 2a.

I feel that, of the scenarios being put forward, that scenario 1 (Do Minimum) would be my prefered option. I feel that this would also be the prefered option of most, if not all, of the people who live in my area. Being sited in the line of the flight path for the airport, we are quite used to aircraft noise effecting our homelife. At the airports current operating level, the noise pollution is minimal, but is still a nuisance. Conversation is disturbed and watching the television (even with double glazing and the windows shut). I am aware that we will by no means be the worst affected by any expansion in aircraft movement, but it is bad enough already. The worst case scenario i would be amiable to, is that of scenario 2(a). I would not like to see eastwoodbury road removed. I would also like councils to respect the green belt area as well as arable land. I feel that currently, feeling between local residents and the airport are reasonably good. However, if the airport were to expand at the rate of scenario 3, there would be hard feeling. I like the fact, that at present there are flying clubs, where people can learn to fly, and see that as a good investment for the airport. I see no reason why the airport cannot invest in the training of new pilots and specialising the repair and maintainance.
I understand that the councils have been given employment level targets to meet, but look what targets have done for the NHS. They have ruined what was a good system. If approval were granted for expansion of the airport there would be irreversable changes.
I would also be concerned for any impact on the value of houses in the area under the flight path. The report has mainly taken into account those that live next to the JAAP area, but not those underneath the flight path. Expansion in aircraft activity would make live difficult for them, especially those that suffer from conditions such as asthema. This may force them into moving, which would be made more difficult when the value of their house has dropped.
What about the hours that flights are alowed? Will this be restricted to protect sleep?

Would prefer no expansion but if we have to have any it would be low growth, the noise and pollution would be absolutely dreadful.As a local resident of Rochford I would move and feel that many local people would also.

No further expansion at all, if possible a reduction in small aircraft movement as it is a constant nuisance all day.

I strongly support scenario 3. High growth of the airport and local area will benefit everyone, particularly with attractive holiday destinations becoming available and thousands of jobs being created. The runway has to be extended to make all this possible.

Scenario 3 is the only credible scenario which could achieve long term economic sustainability for the Airport and therefore meet the economic objectives and provide the robust revenues to offset any downturns and safeguard the existing 1200 jobs at the aiport. In summary the reasons for this are as follows:
• Airlines could use modern fuel efficient aircraft with economic loads on a range of business and leisure flights to serve the local population and businesses
• The risk of further regulatory limitations is avoided and safety enhanced
• There would be opportunities for excellent transport and environmental enhancements
• Airport-related jobs would form the core of the employment growth
• St Laurence and All Saints Church would not be moved
• The Green Belt boundary can be defensible and fixed to a natural feature

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.

My husband and I fully support Scenario 3. Very simply, this delivers wealth and employment to the region with the bonus of business and leisure flights. With regards to the environment, it surely makes sense to have fewer large passenger aircraft movements rather than more small aircraft movements.

Enough of the broken dreams, we have a great opportunity here, lets grab it with both hands and make it happen (and yes, I do live on the flightpath).

We, the officers of St Laurence Church, Eastwood, wish to register our broad support for the Joint Area Action Plan for Southend Airport. Despite past history between us our desire is very much for the Airport to thrive. We feel that, as this is a plan for the area until 2021, it would be sensible to plan for the High Growth scenario, only releasing areas as the need arises.

We recognise the potential for the Airport to become a major source of employment for the town, and that it's success will play an important role in Southend's regeneration. The plans, as proposed, appear to impact adversely on few local residents, and it is our understanding that the Airport are in discussion with those likely to be affected to mitigate the effect of the changes.

Our two major concerns for St Laurence are:

Firstly, to protect the integrity of the Church Building and Churchyard within the current curtilage - which these plans appear to do.

Secondly, to maintain full and unhindered access to them along Eastwoodbury Lane. This latter will need to be addressed carefully and it is a pity that there is not more information regarding the proposed route for the diverted Eastwoodbury Lane.

With these concerns taken into account we wish Southend Airport every success with their plans.

Scenario 3 'high growth' is the preferred option for the future prosperity of South East Essex and has less risk for potential investors than scenario 2[b].It will contribute significantly to the new jobs target set by the Government for Southend and Rochford and provide many high value jobs in aviation engineering.Furthermore, our research suggests that modern planes that are now designed to be more fuel efficient and make less noise actually need longer runways to operate than the current generation of planes that are noisier and less fuel efficient.This could mean that scenario 2[b] is actually noisier than scenario 3.

Of the options offered in the London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan,
I prefer Scenario 1 - the "Low Growth (do minimum)" option.

Both my husband and I would strongly object to any expansion of the airport so would support scenario 1. We do not want the increase of noise and pollution and believe that many Southend residents have no idea how the expansion of the airport would effect them. The large number of flights in and out of the airport 24 hours a day and the stacking systems would have an effect on all of Southend/Rochford/Rayleigh and not just the immediate area around the airport. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the increase in road traffic the passenger numbers would bring and to believe everyone will arrive & depart by rail is absurd. The current owners have said as part of their 'sales pitch' at how successful and profitable the airport is now, as it is, so any expansion is unnecessary as the future owners would still make a profit. Furthermore, we can only believe that majority of the support comments on this site (mostly with no actual supporting views) are from employees of the airport who have had plenty of notice of this 'public consultation' and time to vote unlike the residents in the area who have been poorly informed. If the Airport, Southend and Rochford council truly believe we the residents want the expansion lets have a full ballot and vote on the proposals so everyone can have a say!

I fully support scenario 3 as i feel that the overall benefits of the re-development of the JAAP outweigh the potential negative issues they forsee. The scenario still considers the effects to the environment and highlights the necessary concentration of efforts that would be needed. The positive effects of employment creation is greatly needed in the South East of Essex and I believe this is the idea opportunity to promote growth not only in the JAAP region but the surrounding business areas such as Temple Farm and Purdey's

scenario option 3

The low growth scenario is my favoured option

Option 3

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.

Support for medium or large scale growth with re-defining of the Green Belt boundary to enable effective new development in this area.

Scenario 3 is the only option if we want the airport to provide any real opportunities to the local people, town and businesses.
The town has been crying out for his opportunity let us finally do something positive and make this happen

Thank you for sending us JAAP Issues & Options Report which we have now read and understood.

There seems to be no mention of anticipated night flight numbers which even at the moment disturb our sleep.

Our preferred scenario for the future of Southend Airport would be 'low growth'. The environmental impact on the area would spoil the area.

The green belt areas are places for people to relax and enjoy the countryside which is not possible with noisy aircraft over head and increased air pollution.

When world leaders are meeting to try to reduce carbon emissions why are we in this area trying to increase them?

I stongly oppose the extension of the runway at Southend Airport having read the information producted by F.O.E. and Airport Watch.

I am a resident in Leigh and also teach at a Primary School in Leigh and am therefore very concerned about the implications of extending the runway.

Money is not everything! Southend needs to be thinking more critically about environment repercussions of any planned developments.

I trust you will be taking into consideration this, and other letters of opposition.

I wish to record my comments on this report. The main problem is that the report focuses on the proposed redevelopment of a relatively small area with virtually no consideration fo the effects that this will have on the wider community and particularly those areas under the flight path from the airport runway. Although the benefits and disbenefits of the various proposals are given for the area within the JAAP there is almost no consideration for the disbenefits for Leigh-on-Sea generally.

I appreciate that there are existing planning consents for the development of the airport with a station, hotel, new terminal and new control tower and that all of these can be implemented. I would, however, vigorously oppose any application for an extension of the existing runway to enable the airport to handle larger and noisier aircraft. Whilst Halcrow refer to the possibility of protecting those living and working within the area of the JAAP they have nothing to say about the inevitable increase in noise levels which woudl be suffered by those under the flight path. These would cause particular disruption to the many schools in Leigh-on-Sea - St. Christopher's, Blenheim Park, St. Thomas Moore, Westcliff High Schools, Our Lady of Lourdes, Darlinghurst, West Leigh and St. Michael's.

In addition to an increase in noise there would be an inevitable increase in air pollution. On page 13 of their Scoping Report Halcrow draw attention to a decline in the air quality in St. Laurence Ward and opint to an increase in air traffic as a potential cause - and this from an airport operating well below its potential capacity.

On page 10 of their Sustainability Appraisal Halcrow say that on any development following an extension of the runway "the increase in aircraft emissions and related noise will be inevitable, therefore the effect on transport, air and noise quality is assessed to be significantly negative." The cumulative effects of noise and pollution would seriously degrade the quality of life in Leigh-on-Sea and no doubt cause a sharp drop in the value of residential property.

It is hoped that the development of the airport will lead to the creation of more employment within the JAAP but Halcrow point out in their Scoping Report of January 2008 that employers in the area are unable to fill existing vacancies due to the lack of skilled personnel. If more jobs are created it would seem that the only way to fill them will be by attracting workers from outside Southend and Rochford. This will create further pressures on housing and facilities within the greater Southend Area.