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

I firmly believe that local environmental & social disruption is not being addressed fully and that the economic benefits are overstated & not explicit enough in how they have been determined.I totally object to any plans that Southend should be embracing an industry that is causing current & future damage globally & locally.There isn't an option put forward that I accept that continues to disturb so many people in Southend & the vicinity.

Scenario 1 Low Growth

The environmental and infrastructure constraints of the Southend Airport site mean that the only viable option is that of minimal growth. Whether intended or not , the overall impact of this document is one of strong bias in favour of significant development and a better balance needs to be demonstrated for the benefit of those (who are they ?) who will be making final development decisions.

I support senario 3 is the best option to ensure both economical growth and employment security/growth for the community and surrounding areas.

Greater Essex's broad and varied economy provides vast range of job opportunities and is a major economic driver in the East of England. The County is also home to a wide array of internationally renowned companies, many of which are highly R&D intensive, including e2v technologies, BAE Systems, Ford, GlaxoSmithKline, Nortel, Olympus Keymed and Britvic.



Government has defined significant growth targets for Essex which although often headlined in terms of housing numbers, are critically linked to challenging numbers of new employment opportunities particularly in the designated growth areas of the Haven Gateway, Thames Gateway South Essex and the Harlow/M11/Stansted Corridor.



Employment growth is driven in a number of ways including new starts, growth of existing businesses, and new investment from elsewhere in the UK and from overseas. This type of growth requires positive support from the public sector and associated agencies to ensure that local conditions exist to welcome new and growing businesses, including provision of suitable infrastructure, land and property.



Existing hubs and clusters such as Southend Airport and its environs lend themselves to such development, and if managed and promoted correctly can act as a magnet for positive and sustainable growth and the realization of the full potential of such assets.



The "London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues and Options Report" outlines several low, medium and high growth options, with an analysis of the associated risks and opportunities. Of these, Option 3 (the high growth scenario) has the strongest strategic fit with the growth aspirations of this part of the Thames Gateway South Essex sub-region, positioning the airport as the central economic driver and creating conditions that are most likely to attract the required public and private investment in the immediate and surrounding areas, with up to 6000 jobs forecast as a result.



The importance of attracting new businesses to establish their operations in the Gateway growth areas is enshrined in the refreshed Essex Local Area Agreement which includes specific targets around inward investment, job creation and retention, new business formation, and so on. So there is every reason from an inward investment and economic development perspective to endorse Renaissance Southend's support for Option 3, to enable the realisation of the full potential from the JAAP.

scenario 3 is the only viable option in providing the local area with economic wealth and the creation of thousands of jobs.

Completely support the expansion of Southend Airport. Scenario 3 high growth. The retail park should never have been built over there, nor should the terminal building have been shrunk. Hope the plans will be approved so that my family can enjoy holidays from Southend again, it has been along time coming.

Completely support the expansion of Southend Airport. Scenario 3 high growth. The retail park should have never been built over there, nor should the terminal building have been shrunk. Hope the plans will be approved so that my family can enjoy holidays from Southend again, it has been a long time coming.

I strongly support Scenario 3 'High Growth'.
For over four decades the huge economic potential of Southend Airport has been neglected. The opportunity of creating 'real' jobs offering career prospects and skills for the citizens of the entire area must be seized.

An extended runway, which will compensate for the length lost due to the Runway End Safety Area's being imposed, will return the airport to a far more attractive and competitive position.

The modern aircraft which will then be able to operate commercially will be no larger than are already arriving empty for maintenance. Many are amazingly quiet and clean, the vast majority of the public never being aware of their arrivals and departures.

The longer runway, together with a new railway station, will make the airport very attractive to airlines, whether operating, scheduled, holiday, or business flights. Southend will once again be back on the European map.

The economic downturn will not last for ever and should in no way cloud the decisions to be made.

A thriving regional airport will generate a new prosperity and sense of wellbeing. Therefore for the sake of local businesses, proper jobs and the public at large, it is essential that Scenario 3 be adopted without delay. Now is not the time to be timid - Go For Scenario 3. 'High Growth'.

The very fact that the airport still exists today, regardless of the ineptitude of Southend Corporation/Borough Council, since the 1960's, proves the unarguable worth of this important regional asset. No other airport in such circumstances could have survived. Much is owed to its geographical position, being, as it is, so close to mainland Europe. Thank Goodness that now, at last, we have a forward looking Southend Borough Council supported by Rochford District Council, both authorities having seen the light! Scenario 3. is the way ahead.

Low growth is the least damaging of all scenarios on offer but responsible government should be looking to reduce greenhouse emissions from the aviation sector.

As a large employer based in the South East of the UK, Ford Motor Company requires the use of an efficient means of transportation to move in excess of 50,000 employees per annum between its European centres of excellence to support its business. Ford moved its operation to Southend in 2006 having operated out of Stansted for almost 40 years. Todate this has been sucessful but we can see that the future ability to operate more environmentally friendly aircraft and reduce costs is hampered by the Runway Length which dictates the type of suitable aircraft employed.

Scenario 3 High Growth

There has been permission to allow a Hotel, Station, terminal building and Control Tower, so the low growth option which most people I feel would go for, would allow further growth in the future anyway, which I object to.

Low growth

I strongly support scenario 3 (High Growth) as being the best option in terms of employment opportunities and economic benefit for the area.

Scenario 1, low growth, if any.

Medium Growth

Public perception may target the large commercial operators as noise and frequency concern some. However the airport has the potential to be a market leader in small (transatlantic capable) business aircraft and services which bring bespoke services and prestigous passengers and aircraft. This also relies on the runway extension.

Would love to see the Airport expand and to be able to fly to European destinations.

With more flights the greater economic prosperity to the area.

I have looked at the plans issued by Rochford District Council, it is exciting and also a little frightening. I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be so, my only qualification is that I lived under a flight path to Heathrow Airport. In latter years a very stressful, not to say noisy time. Not only that, but the air quality at times was bad when planes discharged fuel before landing.

I do appreciate that there must be development otherwise the Airport will decline and die. I did write to the local paper some years ago that it should be sold to the NHS to develop a super Hospital for the end of the Thames Gateway, a pipe dream I am afraid.

Having read all the Scenario Options, I would prefer Scenario 2(b). The reasons are:-
1. The environs are already very well populated, a large Airport would impact on the local people in the way I described above, and I lived at least 12 mines away! When I visited my in-laws who lived in Heston (very close to the Heathrow Airport,) sensible conversation was almost impossible as the planes were almost at roof height, in fact one low flying plane flew so low over my niece's house that caused a vortex that took the tiles off her roof endangering her and her newborn baby.

2. The infrastructure would have to be greatly enhanced for a larger airport. There are no through roads in this part of the country to go on to another destination. All traffic has to return the way it came, the roads are congested enough. Water is another problem, this being the driest part of the country increasing the population would only make the problem greater. Roads, housing, water, schools, medical services, and leisure facilities would have to be enhanced. The people producing this document have not looked at the larger picture. Not everyone wants walks in country parks as the document implies.

3. Stansted Airport is not many miles away and is already being developed further, there is no room to put in another runway so in a very short time Southend would loose out to a larger Airport.

4. Carbon footprint, that dreaded word. People are travelling less, air traffic is a great polluter, if Southend is to be developed it must be strictly controlled as to any futher expansion over and above the proposed plans.

I think that Scenario Option 2(b) is about all the environment could, or should stand. People have to live, there are more people living in this area than people wanting to fly. Anthing larger could, in the future, become a very expensive white elephant.

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!

I am deeply concerned by the news that Southend Airport intends to extend the runway to allow larger planes to use the airport.

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

I understand that in order to extend the runway, it will be necessary to re-route Eastwoodbury Lane, already a very busy road, presumably at some cost to local residents, and also that some houses may be scheduled for demolition to facilitate this diversion.

It is entirely inappropriate for Southend Airport to model itself on the airport in Southampton. Southampton is served by motorways from the north, west and east and the airport is adjacent to one of these. Southend already has congestion problems and certainly does not have the road infrastructure to cope with the 1 million passengers a year going to and from the airport that Southend Airport would like to see by 2012, never mind the 2 million they want by 2030.

I am also concerned that any increase in passenger numbers at Southend Airport will increase air pollution beneath the flight path, affecting a number of local schools and potentially damaging the health of hundreds of local children. The increased noise pollution throughout an even wider area of the town will inevitably impact house prices and in some cases the ability of people to sell their houses at all.

Even though the current plans for the airport don't involve moving St Lawrence Church as previous ones did, an increase to 40 flights a day with bigger planes is likely to cause serious damage to the church's structure anyway, as well as being a constant annoyance to worshippers and local residents.

Please keep me informed of future consultations on the airport and its environs.

Please find enclosed my submission concerning proposed developments at Southend Airport. My main objections to the proposal are as follows:-

Cost
Environmental damage
Noise pollution

I have not gone into great detail because as referred to in recent telephone concersation a member of your organisation will consign my memorandum to his 'trash' bin the moment he notes the identity of the writer.

London Southend Airport JAAP issues and Options Report â€" Representations on behalf of Westcliff Rugby Club

We are writing on behalf of Westcliff Rugby Club to respond to the recently published draft Joint Area Action Plan for London Southend Airport.

As you may be aware, Westcliff Rugby Club has operated from its clubhouse at The Gables on Aviation Way since the mid 1980s. With over 600 members, Westcliff RFC is one of the largest amateur sports clubs in Essex. It has a highly successful team, with its 1st XV having finished top of the London Division 3 North East league last year.

The Club is keen to invest in its facilities for members and spectators, and to consolidate its position as one of the premier clubs in the Southend area. It could do this at its existing premises, but the Club is not averse to relocating to an alternative site.

The current clubhouse is owned by the Club (on a long-term lease) and the playing fields are rented from Southend Borough Council. In relocating, the Club would ideally like to acquire a freehold land interest or otherwise move to premises with a long-term security of tenure.

In the light of the above, the Club is generally supportive of the proposals for growth set out in the JAAP. It sees the proposals for growth and investment in the area as a positive opportunity for the enhancement of recreation and sporting facilities as a complimentary part of the growth agenda.

In terms of the specific content of the document, we would respond as follows:

In response to Question 4.12, the Club generally agrees that the areas for change identified are the correct ones. It would point out that area ii(d) is not of course all agricultural land as suggested on page 48 of the JAAP, but the Club agrees with the JAAP that given the location of the site, this area would be suitable for development if an extension to the Aviation Way employment area were required.

With reference to Figure 4.1, the clubhouse, its car parks, the tennis courts to the west, and the commercial operation south of the tennis courts combine together to form a substantive area of development on the north side of Aviation Way. The clubhouse has the benefit of an existing access from Aviation Way, and could be redeveloped to provide additional commercial development in isolation, or as part of the wider development of the playing fields to the north.

In terms of the 4 growth scenarios, we would make the following comments:

Scenario 1 â€" Low growth. This option is not supported by the Club, because it would fail to capitalise on the potential for the enhancement of local sport and recreation facilities that could arise as part of a wider growth strategy.

Scenario 2(a) â€" Medium growth. This option is not supported by the Club for the same reasons as above.

Additionally, however, the Club would suggest that if Scenario 2(a) were pursued, the playing fields site (including the clubhouse) represents the most appropriate area for the northern expansion of the Aviation Way estate, on the basis that it is of lower landscape quality than the adjoining agricultural land, would utilise an area of previously developed land, and offers a site with well defined boundaries where development would have a minimal impact on the Green Belt.

Furthermore, if the Green Belt is to be amended, Government guidance seeks to ensure that any alteration relates to permanent physical boundaries, and relates to a long-term timeframe. The proposed area for release does not relate well to any existing physical boundaries, and allows no flexibility for future development should there be a need for further growth in the long-term. If this option is pursued, the playing fields and adjoining land north of the proposed employment extension should also be released from the Green Belt and safeguarded for potential future use.

Scenario 2(b) â€" Medium Growth. In response to this option, our comments in relation to the most appropriate site for expansion of Aviation Way would be as above ie. that the playing fields site would be more appropriate.

In terms of our comments under 2(a) relating to the need for a long-term Green Belt boundary, we are unclear as to where the proposed Green Belt boundary would be under 2(b). Figure 5.3 appears to show the proposed boundary revised to follow the line of the brook on the northern half of the JAAP, and we would support this as offering an appropriate long-term boundary, which would provide some flexibility for the future. However, on page 69 under Section 3 of the table in relation to Green Belt, the comment is made that the Green Belt would be drawn tightly around the new allocations. It would be helpful if this were clarified.

The positive proposals in this option for enhancement of the land adjoining the airport for recreation and amenity purposes would be welcomed, but the Club's concern is that there is no obvious mechanism for delivering that enhancement, and for that reason also, this option is also not supported.

Scenario 3 â€" High growth. The club support this option on the basis that it appears to deliver both growth and the opportunity to create new opportunities for sport and recreation within the JAAP area.

The Club would not object to relocation to the land marked at ii(b) on Figure 5.4. The Club considers that this creates an opportunity to reinforce the presence of sports facilities within the JAAP, with the football club to the east of Cherry Orchard Way, the Rugby Club, and the golf course combining to create a substantial corridor of sports-related uses, stretching between Rochford town centre to the east and the country park to the west, creating a real focus for sport and recreation.

Relocation would provide an opportunity for significant investment in sports facilities in the area. The increased value of the existing playing pitches would help to fund creation of enhanced facilities not just for the Rugby Club but for other sports uses as well. In addition, we would expect the JAAP to be underpinned by a developer contributions strategy, which could provide additional funds towards the enhancement of local sport and recreation.

For these reason, the Club supports Scenario 3.

I trust the above representations will be taken into account, and we look forward to acknowledgement of receipt in due course.