6.2 Sending in Your Views

I am very concerned about the runway extension with regards to increased noise from aircraft

I am concerned by the amount of pollution it will cause and damage to the local environment such as plants and animals along with added traffic problems.

Overall then we welcome the progress you have made with this important document. Looking to the immediate future, and bearing in mind the purpose of pre-submission consultation as an iterative and on-going process in which consultees can help shape the issues and options to be tested, it is important that you have a clear view about how this initial work and subsequent work will be taken forward to produce preferred options for wider public participation. In particular you will need to be clear how the outcomes of this initial consultation may be used to engage in further consultation.

Before we have this plan rejected on grounds of the "environment" can we please have a national, reasoned debate on "climate change"? CO2 - the stuff we all breathe out is responsible? I haven't seen an open discussion yet, so until there has been full and open discussion on what exactly is "climate change" and what causes it (of which everyone seems to have their own ideas), can we keep it in context? What animals will be affected (indeed - will they be affected more than humans)? Balance the benefits against any negatives!

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.

The questions in this consultation are duplicated - perhaps to deter people from responding?

As a Rochford resident I am concerned at the lack of local consultation and a limited amount of time to read and register support or objections. I would have liked this matter brought to my attention by letter or e mail. I know many residents who know nothing of this proposal and it is already too late to comment for many of them even if they can negotiate the website. My concern is flight paths. They do not seem to have been mentioned. We need more information available to more people.

This consultation process should have been more widely publicised. I only learned of it quite recently.

The 2 Million passengers a year you are aiming for is just not right for our area (Leigh on Sea)we are on the flight path which means aircraft will be every few minutes. The noise of aircraft and the smell of fuel is also an issue.

Please think of the people for once instead of money. The powers that be keep reminding us to be 'green' play YOUR part too!

My partner and I object to any extention of the runway now and in the future.

The growth of air travel is inappropriate in the current climate of increased fuel costs and global warming. At the very least we should confine the airport to its current size, not seek to expand it.

We are writing to you with regards to your consultation in relation to the possible expansion of London Southend Airport.

We have read through the consultation documents and have got to oppose to the two scenarios that would mean the biggest expansion of the airport.

We live on the current flight path of the airport traffic that flies over the Blenheim area and at the moment it is just about tolerable. If the flights are increased to the amount that the Airport wants we could see the complete destruction of the way we live.

We are already woken in the mornings by large planes flying over and if we are sitting in our garden and one flies over, we cannot hear each other speak. One of the reasons we bought our house was due to the large garden it has. To have a possible 4 planes an hour flying overhead, every hour would be a nightmare. We would loose the use of our garden as a place of relaxation, our right for a good night sleep and also any peace and tranquillity everybody deserves in their home. Also to ensure that there are only four planes an hour, does that mean we will have to put up with night flights? This would be completely unfair to residents under the flight path as the planes coming over already wake us up! What is Southend Airport going to do to minimise the noise/vibration that will be emitted by the Boeing 737's that they will be using? The noise of the current planes is bad enough without the use of larger planes.

We are not naïve in thinking that nothing should be done to the airport in bringing more jobs and prosperity to the town but why should it be to the suffering of the people who live under the flight path and the surrounding areas? Why must the airport be extended to such an extent that it will affect the way people live? There must be a way of bringing money into the area without upsetting so many residents (i.e. scenario one of the consultation).

Two million passengers a year is such a large leap we really don't think that the infrastructure could cope with this. We cannot see how the roads will be able to cope with the amount of traffic that expansion to the airport would create. Yes there is currently planning permission for a railway station but to think that people will use this other than their own car is madness. Everyone will prefer to drive his or her own car. I use the A127 daily and during rush hour the road is completely chock a block going into and out of Southend. I can't see how the roads will be able to deal with the influx of traffic.

There is also the environmental element as well. The government constantly talk about protecting the environment with regards to pollution, we can't see how creating more air traffic is going to help this. The council wish to promote the Southend area, as a place for tourists to come and visit but if the airport expands the constant noise/vibrations of the aeroplanes will actually put people off of coming here. Leigh, Hockley and Rochford are all areas which will be affected by the noise and are places where people enjoy going to country pubs, walks etc.

If in the very unfortunate event that the higher impact scenarios are chosen (which we feel has already been decided!), the council must ensure that everything is done to protect the people who will be affected by this, i.e. conditions that airport must follow re the amount of flights it can use, flight times (to allow people to sleep without being woken up/none on Sundays), mass reduction of noise and vibrations, which need to be closely monitored by the relevant council departments. We think this is the very least the council should do to protect the needs of the taxpayers affected.

We both feel that Southend Council have not advertised the fact that this consultation period is going on and how members of the public can comment. We have spoken to many of our neighbours and they had no idea what was happening and that they could consult. Everything we have read in the local papers says that there is a consultation but we feel that nothing clearly states that residents need to comment to the council. We know that Rochford Council have advised the majority of their residents with details of the Joint Action Plan through their paper 'Rochford Matters' and therefore everyone has been given the opportunity to be involved. We don't feel that Southend Council has done the same and are very disappointed in this.

Please find enclosed several letters that were sent into 'The Leigh Times' which we feel echo the feelings of many of us in the Leigh area.

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 the "Low Growth (do minimum)" option.

In addition to the comments on the attached letter, I wish to make the additional comments for inclusion as part of the consultation process:

Communication

I am appalled at the poor communication of a project with such far reaching consequences. I only heard of these plans via the letter which was posted through my door on Monday 4th August (which is signed and at the front of this note), explaining that any comments had to be in by Friday 8th August.

My parents, who have lived in Manners Way near Warners Bridge, for over 50 years and will obviously be very affected by the plans, have had no information whatsoever sent to them.

Road Congestion

There is already far too much traffic for the size of road from Rochford to Warners Bridge and at several times during the day a journey which should take five minutes often takes up to 20 minutes.

Earlier in the year a planning application to site a recycling unit at Warners Bridge was rejected due to the lack of road infrastructure, therefore it would suggest that any application to increase traffic in this area woudl also be rejected.

Air Pollution

We already suffer from air pollution due to the airport and we often have to close our windows due to the smell of aviation fuel, this could make living in the area unbearable, particularly if it is hot and humid in the summer, due to the increased aircraft.

Noise Pollution

We moved to Rochford 11 years ago, as at that time it was a fairly quiet village. I have MS and need peace and quiet to rest. Unfortunately, the place has grown considerably and it is no longer the peaceful place it was, however, any plans other than the "Low Growth" option will make it extremely noisy in terms of aircraft and traffic and unfortunately, a less desirable place to live and therefore we may not find it easy to sell our house if we wished to move to somewhere quieter.

I am appalled at the lack of consideration given to current residents in the area and feel that the focus is on government targets and making money which will not find its way back to residents.

I wish to state my objection to any expansion of Southend Airport.

This means option 1 is my preference I believe my objection is based upon the following:

Increased noise.
The flight corridor extension over residential areas and schools.
Increased air pollution in a town that has above average respiratory problems according the the local NHS Trust.
Any extension would destroy Eastwoodbury Lane, one that maybe over 1000 yeasrs old and is a landscape feature found from the first mapping by Andre and Chapman 1777 and little changed till the 1920's and the small holdings act post 1914/18.
All other options would encroach upon urban green open space south of the lane, some farmed and some parkland with wildlife meadows with reptiles. Further there is "the traditional orchard with a Biodiversity Action Plan cover from SBC and with the former as signatory to EEC the same. Also a public footpath.
The status and origin of the above green area was it offset when Tesco and RBS development occurred and transfer of land from ECC to SBC.
This is an unnecessary airport development given the public transport link with Stansted almost hourly initiated by BAA. Combine this with the present ongoing fuel crisis the future of air travel becomes precarious especially with quick turn around no frills flight companies quickly drop flight connection.
This process of consultation itself has not been easily accessible, difficult website access and pathways, newspaper articles with no how to process indicated to enable preference registration.
No indication with 3 options for extension with the peripheral land use charges.
No indication of the independence of any analysis of noise, air and environmental impacts.
The lack of proactive consultation to enable people to understand and ease option preference making, when the public reaction to this initial phase will be quoted at a later date as a satisfactory response.
Finally I would request acknowledgement of your receipt of this objection to JAAP please.

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 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.

I am very angry and disappointed at how 'quiet' this public consultation has been kept. The airport and its advisors are clearly worried about local opinion and are hoping to suppress it by keeping it quiet.