1 Introduction

We live under the flight path and are of course naturally very concerned about noise, safety and impact on the environment.

None of these proposed new flights are necessary. The jobs may or may not come and we realise they are a very real potential benefit. However, 40 000 people probably live under the flight path or in the affected area. Why should an expansion go ahead which will materially prejudice the quality of life of so many, in the homes they work hard for 52 weeks a year, to allow people, most of whom do not live under the flight path, to have another option as to where they jet off for their long weekends or two weeks in the sun from, or to allow a particular haulier to slightly increase its turnover?

Southend airport is a historical anomaly. Set in a residential area as it is it is completely inappropriate to be proposing passenger numbers of two million per year.

We would rather this did not go ahead but sense that the consultation is a fait accompli, accordingly we stress the importance of effective noise control and hope we can trust our councils to deliver it.

As a resident of Southend for more than 40 years, I have always supported the developmnt of the airport. Perhaps this time the full potential and obvious advantages of a viable airport can be realised.

The Future of Air Transport White Paper is flawed in that there is doubt about the economic benefits of the expansion of air travel
(a) to the national economy both in the short term with holiday makers taking their money out of the country to spend abroad and in the slightly longer term in respect of the cost to the national economy of dealing with the disastrous results of climate change AND
b) to the local economy where goods made more cheaply abroad are imported to the local area with the potential for destabilising the local economy rather than benefitting it

The expansion of air transport can no longer be considered sustainable in any sense since the international scientific community is agreed that human activity is leading to climate change and that aircraft emissions create a large proportion of the 'greenhouse gases' which are responsible for climate change.
With the present state of scientific knowledge, people making decisions which lead to airport expansion are guilty of a crime against humanity.

We object to the expansion of the airport as we feel that the disadvantages of such would heavily outweigh any advantages brought to the area as a whole. We are concerned about the environmental impact as well as aircraft noise which currently negatively affect both our home and our children's school, and also traffic congestion in the area. We do not feel that the consultation has been carried out in an open and accessible manner.

I object to lack of publicity and information on this proposal. I was only made aware of it by an announcement on BBC Essex about information packs not being delivered by contractors a couple of weeks before the closure date for objections, I then had to phone up to get a pack. This turned out to be a padded out toned down version of the June JAAP Report with the three lower growth options take out and all the objectionable facts watered down or removed, along with most of the numbers. Fortunately having already objected to the High Growth Option in the autumn I had some information. My neighbours and other people I meet in the area don't even seem to be aware of this proposal yet, let alone know that they only have another week to object.

I strongly object to the airport expansion. There is little public awareness of issues that will have a huge impact on their lives and environment. An issue of this magnitude should be independently assessed with greater credence given to the views of the local population.

the evidence is flawed and the consultation is a joke. evidence is provided by a rich biased airline industry consultation is deliberately un accessible, evidenced by the numerous reports of people going to Southend council, asking for the consultation documents and not being given one because "none are available". i have also found it tortuous trying to find a link from Southend Council website to express my views, even though everywhere it tells me my views are welcome.

I strongly object to the runway extension and associated developments. They will blight the lives of many residents in the area due to the increase in noise, pollution and traffic to provide very limited benefits.

• I strongly object to the plan for the development of the airport (existing plan). The economic benefits for the area are greatly outweighed by the significant environmental impacts. Most significant being noise, congestion and air pollution. This is a poorly thought out scheme. The location of Southend Airport is totally unsuitable for significant expansion beyond its existing capacity. The benefits to the local community are unproven.

• There is absolutely no evidence that 7380 jobs can be created or that they will go to local people. This is a fictional figure that is being used to justify airport expansion. There is already established and expanding airport capacity in the South East. The environmental implications of this airport extension are catastrophic for the local area.

• I object in the strongest possible terms to the plans that will result in substantially increased air freight operations from Southend airport. The resultant noise pollution will have a significantly negative impact on the local area and in particular impact residential areas in Leigh on sea and Eastwood.

• I object to the extension of the existing runway as it will result in a significant increase in noise levels for local residents

• I strongly oppose the operation of flights of any kind outside of strict hours of control. In particular, I object to the operation of freight aircraft during the night. Freight aircraft are often older, noisier and more polluting than passenger types leading to a greater level of environmental degradation.

• The surface access plan will result in increased congestion. Main arterial routes (A127 and A13) are already very seriously congested. Airport expansion will make this considerably worse.

I am concerned about the considerable and unnecessary expansion of the industrial estate and the loss of greenbelt and good farmland. The area adjacent to Cherry Orchard Way was originally allocated as a business park but lay unused for years. It was then occupied by travellers and when they were forced to leave it cost thousands to clean the site up. This area is still 50% empty and the rest is now car showrooms and a petrol station/shop. I believe there is no call for an additional business park which will mean areas of good farmland will lay dormant for future traveller invasions.

I object to the expansion of this airport on environmental gronds. The government have said that aviation co2 emissions must fall to below 2005 levels by 2050. Expanding an airport is directly in contradiction to this. It is hugely irresponsible to be expanding airports at a time when passenger demand is dropping and money should be being used for more sustainable industries.
There is absolutely no evidence that 7380 jobs can be created or that they will go to local people. This is a fictional figure that is being used to justify airport expansion.

I would like to object to all of the proposed ideas for increased operations of flights at Southend airport as this would reduce the quality of my life and interrupt my sleep patens. Also it would have an extremely damaging effect on property prices in my area due to increased noise and pollution that would occur if these proposals go ahead.

Re Para 1.2:
Where is the evidence base to support this and can we have access to this.
Re Para 1.3:
Where is the scoping report and how do we obtain access to this?
Para 1.6
sub para 3:
Where is the detail of the significant job opportunities and where is the detail of the regional economic strategy?
Sub para 4:
Can you quantify 'significant job opporutnites' as without this information there is no substance or tangible evidence.

Para 2.1
Sub Para 6:-
How is the quality of life objective going to be reached for all of its citizens, when the obvious impact of runway extension and diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane can only result in the worsening of environmental health for the population.

Sub Para 9
The Rochford Core Strategy - why and how is this flourishing new employment area supposedly underpinned by the growth of the airport going to attrach high technology businesses?

Para 2.2
Sub Para 2:-
How can a high quality environment for residents be assured when noise pollution cannot be managed and the protection of green space is being ignored.

The proposed airport extension would have an adverse effect on the local town. The area is simply too built up with local housing to support the extension. It is too late to try to extend the airport without ruining the quality of life of thousands of people.

Adequate/full compensation must be provided for all properties due to "Flight Blight"; which may well prevent anyone in the area selling their property for a realistic commercial price in the foreseeable future.

I understand that the Uttlesford District already severely suffers this situation within a five mile radius, due to the Stansted expansion plans and potential extended settlement claim delays are always inevitable. The Stobart Group must undertake prior compensation guarantees on an individual claim basis - if they are so confident that this will bring so much prosperity to the town. The Stobart Group/Council could then "cost" this within the overall budget.

It should also be noted that if the projected flight patterns are realised then extensive additions to the inadequate road network would be required (proper access only viable by the West?), resulting in further properties outside the flight path then subject to road blight, with likely compulsory purchases.

Overall, this would become a nightmare situation in the many years ahead while the Council stumbles on with its ill conceived speculative proposals and the consequent associated rumours and doubts, which will continue to suppress property prices in the whole of this area for a considerable period; regardless of the current "Credit Crunch".

This report is entirely based on information that is now out of date. BAA are forecasting that due to the economic downturn, passenger numbers are falling at many regional airports and small airlines are likely to close with inevitable redundancies . I strongly object to extending the runway or expanding the airport that will bankrupt this town. There is nothing to gain from this lame duck and too much to lose on economic and environmental grounds.

Ref: transport - Neither the A13 nor the A127 are able to take any more transport. They are already at saturation point as is obvious from the long queues of traffic in an out of Southend at all times.

I strongly object to the development of the airport. Having read many of the other objection comments, there are just not enough benefits for the local community compared with the disadvantages to thousand of residents.

I would like to complan about how short the consultation period was in 2008, we were given two weeks to coment on a big issue. We oppose the expansion of the airport because of noise and the pollution this will create so close to our home and so many others, we worry for the health of our children and the quality of life for people in Rochford. Why do we need this expansion when stansted is so close? do we not have enough airports already. We cannot see how this development will benefit Rochford and therefore object to the expansion.

Strong objection. The A127 is already well know for it's daily jams and high accident rate, with the extra passenger and cargo traffic it will just not be able to cope at all. Add the extra time that will be taken by every A127 commuters together and it will far outweigh any possible financial gain from the airport. JAAP planners say their report only covers local area up to the A127, but they suggest that improvements to the A127 and a new route to the north east will be required but this is the Local Planning Authorities responsibility not theirs (they also say the same thing about noise, pollution and safety). For years and years we have been told nothing can be done to improve the A127 (due to surrounding structures) and the road to the north has been rejected so what can they do.

The expansion of the airport is a brilliant idea, i would give full support to it.
It will create more jobs & save time travelling to london to fly.

Total objection to all proposals due to environmental impact as previously rejected in 1966. Hold a full Publis enquiry.

It should be obvious by now looking at all the negative comments and any politician or local Councillor that supports the expansion will come under great pressure at the next elections. I may even stand myself as an independent on this issue if I receive support! Prepare for a protracted and costly fight as we will all protect our home values to our utmost.

I am strongly against any expansion of the airport.

You will be adding to the Global environmental damage e.g. damage to the ozone layer by more aircraft.

You should be finding ways to discourage people from flying.

There are too many airports in this area already and further expansion is unnecessary.

Lesley Laver

I (and my wife) am strongly against any expansion of the airport.

You will be adding to the Global environmental damage e.g. damage to the ozone layer by more aircraft.

You should be finding ways to discourage people from flying.

There are too many airports in this area already and further expansion is unnecessary.

John Laver

The development of the airport is long overdue and I am sure would be widely well recieved, I just wish the silent majority of supporters would be a bit more vocal.

No information is provided on likely flight numbers and projected timings? There must be a business plan containing this information? We need to know this to make an informed judgement.

The likely jobs gained is speculative and such documents are usually over optimistic.

Why have none of my previous objections been entered in the various sections? This whole consultation process is a complete farce. Wait for the Public Enquiry!