Q5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?

I'd like to see the true commercial value of the site realised by turning over the location to a high tech manufacturing & business park,with residential development that creates a localised self supporting community that would reduce the strains on the existing infrastructure whilst providing much needed housing.

Development for recreational purposes (e.g. football stadium) or no development at all.

My favoured solution is a gradual reduction in aviation capacity until such time as the industry is carbon neutral.
But, I do not support any increase in night flights, or noise, even if the industry can find an alternative to fossil fuels which is genuinely sustainable.

Emphasis should be made of the fact that an extended runway will not mean noisier aircraft operating. The reality is that it will bring the airport back to the operational status it had before the RESA's were imposed. They had the effect of shortening the existing runway. A misconception may exist that the extended runway creates a much greater operational length than previously.

The financial implications of tunnelling Eastwoodbury Lane under the extended runway should be fully investigated. How much more would it cost compared with diverting the lane? From a traffic congestion situation at the end of a diverted lane, would it not be more acceptable, or is there just not sufficient room for such a facility?

Close airport

The main problem regarding development of the airport is the impact on the road infrastructure which has not been addressed by this report. The Cherry Orchard Way was constructed to allow easy access to Southend thus relieving the Ashingdon Road and Southend Road. It was promised that no new development would be allowed along it except the business park at the Southend end, which had already had permission and had been released from the green belt back in 1985. The Brickwork site was to be returned to arable land as per conditions in the original permission for brick earth extraction.

Rochford should not be called upon to relieve Southend of their obligations to provide employment land. The report says that there is scope for intensification of employment land. This should be done before any new land is released.

Since the expansion of Stansted and London City airports, Southend airport has declined it has also lost its airspace. There is little scope for improvement any new facilities proposed do not match Stansted which at least has the road infrastructure. The proposed diverting of Eastwoodbury Lane and dualing of Cherry Orchard Way and extra access points would cause traffic problems during construction and loss of arable land.

The only realistic scenario is option 1 low growth. The other scenario will have great environmental impact of traffic, pollution and visual to the detriment of Rochford District residents.

These are the responses to the Southend Airport and Environs JAAP consultation from Leigh-on-Sea Town Council.

2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?
No

2.2 Are there any important assets missing from the assessment?
Rochford Hundred Golf Course, Rochford Tennis Club and an ancient orchard off Eastwoodbury Lane

3.1 Do you agree with the overall vision for the JAAP?
No, it doesn't include the impact that the developments at the airport would have on the wider area.

3.2 Do the objectives set out cover the key requirements from the area?
Yes, but with the following amendments (underlined):
. Creation of sustainable and high value employment and other land uses
. Maximising the economic benefits of a thriving local airport and related activity
. Ensuring appropriate improvements in sustainable transport accessibility and facilities are in place before any expansion of the airport and other areas of the JAAP
. Ensuring a high quality environment for residents of the wider area expressed through noise pollution management or protection of green space
. Maximum return on public investment through attracting inward investment but only if it is the right investment
. Efficient use of existing employment land

3.3 Are there any other objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?
Major public and private transport infrastructure improvements to protect and enhance biodiversity issues within the area covered and those outside that may be affected by the JAAP area.

4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?
1. Provide air transport and aviation related industries
2. To secure regeneration to enable it to reach its potential to function as a local regional airport (SBC Core Strategy, Objective SO11)
3. Act as a driver for the economy

4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?
Airport expansion along with economic/business improvements work best as a package. It should be consequential to, and not specifically be, the driver

4.3 What role should the JAAP play in supporting wider employment growth in the sub-region?
Low scale economic growth. Change to JAAP to act as a facilitator for both Authorities to work together for the regeneration of the area.

4.4 Is the area suitable for significant growth in employment?
No, not without significant surface transport improvements.

4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?
Yes, if high or medium airport growth options are chosen; if leisure activities and better transportation is in place

4.6 Are there additional options to consider?
No reply

4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so, how should it be revised?
No

4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? What are the priority areas?
General recreational enhancements for all the population, such as a Nature Park. To be funded out of Developers Contributions.
The Country Park should be extended to take in all land between Southend and Rochford.
Extra care and vigilance to prevent industrial waste polluting Eastwood Brook. This has been a problem in the past and probably will after expansion of the industrial area.

4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?
In respect of Leigh, actual and perceived increase in noise, pollution and traffic congestion.
Mitigation by:
. Restricting the types of aircraft used, numbers of flights and restricting night flying
. Creating a 20 year airport extension plan with improved transportation included.
. Having proper consultation with fixed base operators.

4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?
Road linkage to central Southend and to the west to be put in place before airport developments take place
Identify the catchment area targeted for airport passengers and the other component parts of the JAAP area and consider the new and improved surface transport required.
There is no conceivable answer to surface transport improvements for the maximum number of passenger numbers considered in the JAAP.
As the number of passengers increases, then consideration given to extra trains specifically for Southend Airport to and from London.

4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?
Implementation of a travel plan for airport staff and businesses on the airport.
Park and Ride schemes with shuttle buses to/from the airport.
Expensive parking fees at the airport and controlled parking in surrounding roads.
Much improved local bus services to and from all local areas.

4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?
No

4.13 Are there any areas that should be added or removed? Why?
Remove
(ii) Agricultural land north of Aviation Way Business Park and
(v) Agricultural land south of airport boundary, currently cricket pitch, agricultural land and private allotments, unless reserved for recreational purposes

5.1 Which is your preferred scenario for the future of the Southend Airport area
Option 1 - Low growth (do minimum)

5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?

5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?
Within the low growth scenario, expansion of Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul operations within area (iii) Land at end of Aviation Way

Response to L S A & Environs Issues & Options Report

By
Murray Foster
(local involvements include Chair of Southend Business & Tourism Partnership and Director of Essex Chambers of Commerce)


Q2.1 Are the assets of the JAAP area fully reported and understood?

Yes, fully reported and understood

Q2.2 Are there any important assets or issues missing from the assessment?

No, none

Q3.1 Do you agree with the overall Vision for the JAAP?

Yes

Q3.2 Do the objectives set out above cover the key requirements from the area?

Yes

Q3.3 Are there any other additional objectives that might help to guide the selection of the preferred option/options and JAAP?

Yes â€" the need for higher level of skilled jobs and more highly remunerated employment within south east Essex creating less dependency on London (city) jobs and retaining home grown talent

Q4.1 What do you see as the role of London Southend Airport in the future?

LSA has to be allowed to develop to become a regional airport for internal UK and west and southern European flights. This will then enable the sustainability and expansion of aero maintenance and servicing and other associated sectors capable of providing higher skilled jobs. It will also act as an external sign poster for south east Essex on UK and European map and act as a catalyst for further improving the external image of south east Essex and encouraging both potential inward investing businesses, visitors and new employees and new residents to view this area as the place to be

Q4.2 How can the airport best be developed to drive and support the local economy?

To be fully effective it has to become a regional airport coupled with sustaining/ expanding aero maintenance sector thereby stimulating supply chain and cluster sector business development including creative industries, leisure and tourism

Q4.3 What role should the JAAP play in supporting wider employment growth in the sub-region?

It has to be predicated on maximising the benefits of having a regional airport â€" Chelmsford, Basildon, Thurrock, Colchester (to mention a few) do not have an airport â€" it is our USP including a 7 mile coastline â€" use it or loose it. Southend/ Rochford have so few sites suitable for employment growth but it will not maximise LSA's site potential by letting it exist with present level of low level of flight activity, (indeed it would whither away and cease to exist) and rely on industrial estate expansion solely, which would not be forthcoming without the USP of an active regional airport. It would just be perceived as another industrial estate at an end of the line location.

Q4.4 Is the area appropriate for significant growth in employment?

Definitely, yes for reasons stated above and rail connectivity that will be integrally linked to the airport. However local road improvements need to be in place to support sustainability of such growth

Q4.5 Will the area be attractive to investors?

Yes provided that road and rail improvements are delivered and appropriate inward investment marketing is undertaken

Q4.6 Are there additional options to consider?

None

Q4.7 Should the Green Belt be considered for revision? If so how should it be revised?

Yes, there should be realignment to maximise the usage of land for employment purposes and also importantly for open spaces

Q4.8 What enhancements to the environment and amenity of the area should be made? What are the priority areas?

The opportunity should be taken to create better quality open spaces in more accessible locations embracing Green Grid and Parklands ambitions

Q4.9 What do you see as the greatest potential impact of development in the JAAP and how can it be mitigated?

Increasing pressure on transport networks and therefore necessary to maximise usage of rail for air passengers/ employees and improve local road infrastructure. Also need to restrict night time flight activity to minimise any potential noise level impact on local residents

Q4.10 What do you consider to be the transport priorities for the JAAP?

Maximise usage of rail and improve quality of local road linkages and bus services


Q4.11 How can a shift from car use to other modes of transport be achieved?

By encouraging employers located within JAAP area to incentivise/ encourage employees to car share, use public transport, cycle

Q4.12 Do you agree with the proposed areas for change?

Yes

Q4.13 Are there any areas that should be added or removed? Why?

None

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

Scenario 3 â€" anything less will result in loosing a catalyst for developing a vibrant employment centre involving high skilled jobs plus local supply chain benefits and additionally high profile external sign poster and improved image creator for south east Essex

Q5.2 How could your preferred scenario be further enhanced?

It is contingent on improvement to local road links and bus services

Q5.3 Are there any other scenarios which you feel have not been considered?

None

In answer to your list of questions appendix A Q2.2,-4.6,-4.8,-4.10,-4.11,-5.3. Could all deal with Road Infrastructure which would be totally inadequate, cheap, and will not impress the local motorist or residents.

The closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, would increase traffic through Hockley-Hall Road-Rochford Station-Sutton Road-Warners Bridge.

An underpass to replace the road closure before the extension would be cheapest and show you were interested in the local community.

The dualing of road to West of the Airport.
Traffic heading South could be stopped at the roundabouts, with increased traffic into West of Airport and would need traffic lights at least.

Q4.11 The only replacement to the car comes from space ship enterprise "beam me up Scottie".

Best wishes for your airport enterprise.

Thank you for the Action Plan of the future of Southend Airport. I have received the plan and have asked for help making sense of all the words of the documentation. As I haven't a computer or fax I am sure you would not mind a written answer.

My wife and I aer mentally handicapped and we are very concerned as to the noise pollution of aircraft especially 737's landing and taking off and using airspace over our neighbourhood here in Southend.

We, my wife and I have tried to study Appendix A - List of Questions. We have both agreed that Q5.3 would be asked about potential accidents over the town, of aircraft crash landing and our safety! Also noise pollution, especially over schools or quiet peaceful neighbourhoods such as we have in Leigh-on-Sea.

To be very blunt, which may be impossible to raise on your PC or whatever we have a vote - to be raised as specified by your brouchure (JAAP) - of total no confidence in the future expansion of Southend Airport. If you require a further list of persons also voting of disapproval then I shall make a petition to this effect.

We do note that we are required any answer to your JAAP by 8th August 08, and I hasten to add that petitions and complaints may be difficult to arrange by this date. So I am going to write if I need to, to our MP and Government in the appropriate official letters.

We hope that you do consider the two or so points which we raise in this letter which I have previously stated.

We are sorry that your study of my letter should bring any confustion especially in my hand writing, but we here at home are very concerned about our towns character. We do not want an expansion of the airport!

Thank you for your study of our letter.

Apologies for late response and hand written reply.

To make things easier to read I have listed my answers on the following pages 1 to 4.

Re: Planning Policy Document, London Southend Airport JAAP

The main Question that I would like to answer is Q5.3. I think that Scenario 1 should include the Runway Extension. My contention for this is that this would allow for fully laden Aircraft such as Boeing 737 Type to take off and land, therefore encouraging Operators of this type of Aircraft to use Southend Airport, and would allow the Airport and it's Environs to develop naturally, in order to keep pace with the increased usage. I futher think that diverting Eastwoodbury Lane to be unnecessary, as the existing road could be channelled under the Runway Extension as applied on other Airport sites.

I generally agree with Q3.1, although I believe that some of the proposals go beyond what is required for, what is essentially a small Airport.

Regarding Q4.2, I believe that, as I have already stated the natural progression from extending the Runway will drive the local economy forward, and that Facilities already exist to support the Airport. eg Engineering, Supplies etc.

Q4.4 Employment will always expand when opportunities are in place.

Q4.5 Investors will usually be attracted where opportunities exist.

Q4.7 I do not believe that the Green Belt should be revissed, as I am sure that Brownfield Sites already exist.

Q4.10 Improvement of Rail facilities, also Local bus services, possible change to electric traction to reduce air pollution.

Q4.11 I do not think that this is possible in the short term, due to the shift working usually expected at this type of Employer.

Finally I appreciate the opportunity to comment in what I believe is a necessary facility to the communities of Rochford, Southend and surrounding areas.

Having just heard about the new plans proposed for the Airport I fully realise that these comments may arrive too late, however:

I am appalled to think that the Council could even consider the closure of Eastwoodbury Lane as a step in the right direction as suggested in the last option in the very, very low key consultation being offered.

The extra traffic that would have to be diverted onto the already overused A127 would cause even more congestion and pollution, waste of time and in these times a waste of energy.

Surely the fact that to increase the length of the runway for larger aircraft use would once again put the church in a difficult situation with eventual closure by some obscure rule from Brussels, by then too late to object.

As a regular user of Eastwoodbury Lane I am in favour of leaving things as they are, the thought that more passengers through the Airport would only add to the extra burden on our infrastructure, even more employment as suggested would cause problems with less road to carry all the extra traffic, some might use the proposed new station but not everyone lives in the West of Southend, cost is another factor in using rail.

Perish the thought but should the later option be passed why not consider a tunnel under any runway as at Heathrow, too expensive I hear, but if money is available for the daft idea of expansion include it!

I would like to take this opportunity to register my opposition to any development of the airport that will increase the current flight movements at Southend Airport.

In my opinion the airport is not ideally located geographically to operate as a modern airport with totally inadequate infrastructure support that does not even come close to a motorway junction for cars, which would be the mode of transport preferred by most travellers to get to and from the airport. Apart from this difficulty for all road users either trying to get to the airport or for locals going about their daily business in that vicinity, the noise nuisance for residents in Leigh generated by more frequent aircraft movements will also be raised to unreasonable levels.

Ultimately but unlikely, I would like to see the site redeveloped but in a manner that does not include an airport at all.

Thank you for sending me a copy of the above document. I regret I have not been able to give the amount of consideration to it that I would have liked but, as you know, I only became aware of its existence as the result of the item in last Friday's (1st August) issue of the Southend Standard.

My comments relate directly to the list of questions in its Appendix A and are from the standpoint of a resident whose quality of life hinges on the outcome of the Council's deliberations. I am frankly surprised and not a little disappointed that residents like ourselves have yet to hear anything from the Council itself on the matter.

Further to my letter of the 1st July, I have now had an opportunity of discussing with my clients, Ipeco Holdings Limited, the Issues & Options report prepared by Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Rochford District Council in connection with the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP), and as one of the largest employers within the area under consideration I have been asked to make the following representations on their behalf.

By way of background information, Ipeco is a family owned private limited company established 47 years ago and is firmly positioned in the aero space/defence industry as designers and manufacturers of innovative products. The company employ 600 people, 500 of which are located in Southend, 50% live within the Borough and a further 30% live within Rochford and Castle Point. The company has been the sole supplier to Boeing of Flight deck seating for the last 20 years and have now been awarded a contract for the new 787 aircraft through to 2021. Apart from providing other aircraft manufacturers with a similar product, they also provide cabin attendant and executive passenger seating together with galley equipment and bespoke internal refurbishment for private executive aircraft. Other trading companies with the Group produce machine components, composites and defence electronics. The core business operates from five buildings in Aviation Way comprising over 200,000 sq ft of manufacturing space with an additional site in Shoeburyness plus two elsewhere in the UK and two sites in the USA, 75% of sales are exports.

The present core business operates from the five individual buildings in Aviation Way that have been acquired piecemeal over the years, some of which are now aging and the split locations inevitably increases production costs. Therefore the creation of further employment related land within immediate proximity to Ipeco's existing operation provides the company with an opportunity to consider regeneration close to their present location, and within this context Ipeco has increased its workforce since 2006 and developed their own employment base with an in-house training centre accommodating over 30 apprentices on a four year scheme.

With regard to the Issues & Options report, the company feels there is very little merit in pursuing Scenario 1, Low Growth as this appears unlikely to provide any benefits to those businesses already existing within Aviation Way, apart from creation of a limited amount of additional light industrial floor space and the correspondingly small increase in employment. This scenario basically fails to meet the policy aspirations set out for the JAAP in terms of regeneration and potential growth in employment.

Scenario 2(a), Medium Growth does introduce a new business park facility with the provision of improved access from Cherry Orchard Way and a small residential development on the former brickworks, but this proposal is limited in its objectives and provides little enhancement over and above the low growth scenario and is unlikely to fulfil the longer term requirements.

Scenario 2(b), Medium Growth envisages London Southend Airport becoming a driver of the sub regional economy by increasing passenger capacity together with relocation of the terminal buildings and, more importantly, a direct railway connection to London. However, the employment related land outside the Airport perimeter is no greater than Scenario 2(a) and therefore any encouragement of new business would be limited. This appears inconsistent with Southend Airport providing the catalyst for the wider development of the area within the JAAP.

Scenario 3, High Growth, provides the opportunity of improving the existing business area which is dated and of mixed use together with the potential of significantly increasing employment levels on the back of the proposals for upgrading the Airport, and would appear to be more consistent with the policy under the Regional Spatial Strategy (East of England). Scenario 3 would also provide an opportunity of meeting future targets for Rochford and Southend so far as employment is concerned, in addition to which it will sustain the existing employment base. In the opinion of our clients a comprehensive scheme envisaged by Scenario 3 provides a basis to achieve the objectives set out in the JAAP apart from which the land is located on the north west side of the town with immediate access to the A127 Southend Arterial Road. This is likely to prove far more attractive to potential businesses than the existing industrial/business areas east of the town where the infrastructure is inadequate.

We have briefly referred to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal in support of the options referred to under the Joint Area Action Plan which we understand forms part of the planning process, but we have no specific comments or observations in response at this point in time other than to say the positive outcome of economic growth under Scenario 3 appears to outweigh the negative considerations which are primarily environmental, a number of which can be addressed by careful planning of future development of the land within the JAAP.

We understand further consultation will take place once a draft plan has been published prior to the submission of the JAAP to the Secretary of State, who will then initiate a Public Inquiry to be held in front of a Planning Inspector.

In the meantime if we can be of any further assistance in connection with these representations submitted on behalf of Ipeco Holdings Limited, then we shall be pleased to hear from you accordingly.

Thank you for consulting the RSPB on the proposed second runway at London Southend Airport.

We have considered the information provided in the Joint Area Action Plan Issues and Options Report, and having reviewed this information, we have serious concerns regarding the Issues and Options Report. Our concerns are based on the grounds that the expansion of Southend Airport would increase the capacity of the airport significantly, increase air transport movements and lead to an associated increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which have been shown to contribute to climate change that threatens biodiversity nationally and internationally.

RSPB policy on increasing air travel/transport

The RSPB have serious concerns about the current forecasts for future growth in air travel. Our policy on airports has been formulated after long and deliberate thought and has been informed by independent research we have commissioned to help us understand the way the aviation business operates today and is likely to operate in future. We are in no doubt that set against the current level of airport provision in the South East of England, the economic and social value of further expansion in aviation is far outweighed by its economic, social and environmental costs. Aviation is an increasing contributor to climate change through the emission of "greenhouse gases2 and can pollute locally.

Climate change is now recognised as the single greatest long term threat to the world's biodiversity. It also brings enormous implications for people and humanity worldwide and the ability to which mankind is able to act to limit climate change is likely to be of increasing impact. Addressing the causes of climate change through mitigation (ie greenhouse pollution reduction) measures would, if successful, provide the most significant contribution to addressing the impact of climate change on biodiversity, both in the UK and globally.

Consequently, the RSPB does not want to see unrestricted growth in airport capacity, as we believe there would be unacceptable effects on the environment. Our policy is thus one of questioning the need for expansion of existing or creation of new airports, of asking government to recognise air travel has serious environmental consequences, and to seek and promote ways government can manage the demand for air travel.

In the aviation Green Paper, the Government expressed its intention to adopt a sustainable aviation policy. Environmental NGOs, including the RSPB argued that this should be delivered by constraining further demand through a basket of measures aimed at reflecting the true cost of aviation to the consumer. In the event, Government rejected this approach; the White Paper gives the green light to projects that meet unconstrained demand estimates to 2030. In its place, Government announced its intention to offset increased emissions through an emissions trading scheme. The RSPB has serious reservations about this approach, as the scheme is not in place before increases in capacity, such as at Southend, are being initiated. The Government's failure to adopt any significant measures to manage demand and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the aviation sector, now threatens to undermine its whole approach to containing climate change.

If you require any further information regarding the RSPB's views on this proposal or our policies on aviation and climate change, please do contact us.