1 Introduction

On behalf of my wife and I, I wish to object to the overall proposal to extend the current facilities at Southend Airport.
To increase the present volume of air traffic will create unnecassry noise and air pollution.
In an era when we are are attempting to find greener ways of travel we should confine our current airports to their present locations and size.
The increase to our road use for the airport would make the current heavy load unbearable.
If there is a need to provide additional employment this can be done without also increasing our airport.

This projact will decrease my family's quality of life. Increased noise and congestion will be unbearable for all local people. The roads around the town are already too busy. An airport extension will increase congestion on the A127 and A13. Furthermore, a significant increase in flights and resultant noise can not be tolerated. Who will really benefit from this extension? Please deeply consider who you represent.

Thank you for your letter of 19 2 09 giving opportunity to respond to above consultation.

At 1.5 Preferred Options, you say "feedback from Issues and Options Report has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area". In spite of statement that the bulk of respondents objected to "Scenario 3 - High Growth2, this is the option chosen, with comment at a meeting in the Freight House that the exercise was not meant to be a referendum. That casts doubt on its validity.

I object to the Preferred option as follows.

Issue 2 Jaap as employment area

Vide HAAP, where demolition of Hockley trading estate is proposed for housing etc, we hear traders are to be moved to new Saxon Business park. No doubt other trading sites will be moved there also for similar reasons. So much for proposed 5450 new jobs in the JAAP.

Issue 3 development/environment

Inspite of proposed "quieter more fuel efficient planes than predecessors"< it is "accepted environmental impacts (noise) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of increased aircraft movements and traffic in area". There is some contradiction here and an admission that those under the flight path in Southend area will suffer. Two area authorities "Continuing to work to establish a baseline of noise levels" is admission that proximity to a large, dense residential area of proposed expanded airport is possibly unacceptable and a "Noise Evaluation Statement" by any future operator will just whitewash it.

Transport

Would it be a good idea to get full infrastructure details of road and transport networks worked out first? There is no guarantee that a hypothetical operator will pay for SERT or any other initiatives.

Policies T1-2

It appears from Nestuda Way to Warners Bridge a lot more demolition of homes will occur than is envisaged already for extending the runway. Although St Lawrence church was saved, the addition construction, followed by transiting planes might well shake it to pieces. Are we also reconsidering the bypass from Shoebury through Rochford green belt here?

Policy T3

If Cherry Orchard Way is to be dualled, what requirements will there be to further 'update' the remainder of b1013 between Rayleigh and Rochford, that has already increased congestion since the cherry Orchard bypass was opened? Compulsory purchase of front gardens was used to widen b1013 in Hockley in the 1960s. This time homes will go as well.

Policy T9

There is already airport provision at Stansted. Why should operators come here? It does appear from "existing and proposed communities with new development sites...support...promote..new development...by public transport links" that airport expansion is a ploy to provide future new road networks round south east Essex, for massive new development. Southend is already fully developed and evidently needs to expand. The initial amendment of the green belt boundary proposed in the document could show the way for more in the future for development.

With unstable fuel prices, this is no time to be expanding an airport: between 2007 and July 2008 aviation fuel doubled in price and the airline industry reported huge losses. British Airways responded by increasing the price of long-haul flights, mothballing some aircraft and cancelling orders for others. In July 2008 the price of oil reached the record level of $147 a barrel. At a conference in Istanbul in June 2008, the International Air Transport Association said it would cost its members $6.1 billion if oil traded at over $135 a barrel (which it has done and could well do again in the future). In 2008 24 airlines had gone bankrupt and more bankruptcies are expected by the industry. Expanding Southend airport now is like a bank telling you that subprime mortgages are a great investment for the future!



Another reason to question the economic viability of the expansion of Southend airport is the dependency such expansion has on governmental support in the absence of any tax on aircraft fuel or any VAT on ticket sales. This provides the industry with a significant government subsidy. In 2007 the World Development Movement (WDM) estimated that this subsidy amounted to approximately £10.4 billion per year. Projections for future aviation growth suggest that the size of this subsidy could rise to around £17.5 billion and some politicians have questioned whether we can continue to subsidise the airline industry to this level, particularly when there are more pressing needs. (This is nearly 850 times more than the UK's annual spending on flood defences- very important for us with memories of the 31st January 1953 tidal surge north sea flooding).



Most importantly for Southend as a potential holiday town airport expansion will impact severely on our local economy. This is supported by the experience of the Travelodge. Giving evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee inquiry on tourism, the company reported that inward tourism spending declined by 16 per cent between 1995 and 2002, while outward spending increased by 48 per cent. One of the main reasons for this, Travelodge said, was that the wider availability of cheap flights which meant more people were choosing to fly abroad for short breaks. Surely we would prefer people to come to Southend for their short breaks and spend their money here? Travelodge's figures indicate a tourism balance of trade deficit for the UK of £18 billion over a seven-year period. There are significant sums of money for a regional economy like Southend to lose should the airport expand. Travelodge's analysis suggests that a 10 per cent reduction in overseas flights by UK tourists by 2020 could boost tourism revenue within the UK, creating more than 30,000 jobs.



The environmental argument against expansion have been stated but are worth reiterating. The UK's aviation accounts for approximately 6.3 per cent of CO2 emissions and about 12.6 per cent of the UK's contribution to climate change and this makes up a greater proportion of the country's contribution to climate change than in any other major economy. This is a shameful legacy we leave future generations.



So there are sound economic reasons why objectors are making a lot of noise about opposing the airport expansion. In a world of more expensive and declining fuel, expansion makes no sense. Instead imagine more people taking short breaks in Southend, boosting our local economy and the workers of Southend airport employed in large scale offshore and inshore wind turbine production, or the development of offshore wave turbine technology, Southend the hub of a new renewable industry. This would be a legacy we could be proud of leaving our children instead of more flights, noise, pollution and wasted resources the airport expansion will leave them.

When The Stobart Group announced its purchase of Southend Airport last year, chief executive Andrew Tinkler announced: "Acquisition of Southend Airport is a major opportunity for Stobart to advance the implementation of its multimodal strategy. At one stroke, we have found our southern base and greatly enhanced our position as a leading point-to-point service provider for customers in the UK and Europe who require fast and efficient services by air as part of their logistics solutions."



"At one stroke we have found our southern base" - this is the most dramatic and telling sentence in the announcement. >From Stobart's "greatly enhanced position" its strategic acquisition of the airport is driven by air freight, the core business of Stobart Air, with huge clients such as Tesco shifting high value/low volume goods by air. It is perhaps beginning to dawn on us that the passenger services being mooted are window dressing, primarily in the mix to appeal to high numbers of local residents (and gullible decision makers), not living on the doorstep of the airport and therefore not immediately affected by noise and air pollution and traffic congestion, who will be seduced by the prospect of convenient holiday flights and therefore support the overall proposal.



Also, it would not be surprising, given Stobart's motives, to see their operation occupy the proposed business parks and industrial estates (possibly building aircraft hangars and lorry parks) if and when these properties fail to attract tenants and provide the much trumpeted "seven-thousand new jobs", especially during an economic downturn, or the "decades of austerity" recently promised.



Many local councillors who support the JAAP truly believe that the airport expansion will bring growth and prosperity to the town, even at the cost of blighting the lives of the local community and increase noise and air pollution. Is the Councils' "vision" being driven by vanity? "Jobs at any cost" seems to be the mantra, but there is no proof that these jobs will materialise or go to local people or that prosperity will come to the town or that passenger air travel will increase in a greener age and provide Stobart with meaningful income from take offs and landings, whereas their air freight business will undoubtedly grow as we all buy more high-tech kit for the home (from Tesco and the like).



Further, the "£21m deal" that Stobart signed provides for a tranche of that consideration to be deferred, subject to "the achievement of certain aspects of the airport's developments." This is pretty standard stuff, i.e. I will give you £1m for that plot of land but a third of it will only be payable if planning permission is granted." (It would be hard to see such a deal drawn up if Stobart were buying the airport direct from the Council!) In Stobart's case, they are committed it seems to £16m - and they surely did their sums. One presumes this was an affordable investment to achieve "at one stroke" a southern base, especially as they believe "the Group can achieve synergies [cost savings] from integrating air with its existing operations". It would appear that the remaining £5m will only be payable (to Regional Airports Ltd, previous owners of Southend Airport who acquired it from the local authorities in 1994) if Stobart's planning objectives (which may be the "preferred option" in the JAAP) are achieved. One imagines that, along with Rochford and Southend Councils, Regional Airports Ltd supports the proposals.



What this seems to mean: If the runway extension is not granted, Stobart will probably continue to grow their air freight business in older and noisier planes and still make good on their £16m investment. Night flights, of which I believe 900+ per month are allowed, i.e. 30 a night (!) are possibly being suppressed during the current consultation period, but will soon increase because this is when a lot of air freight moves, i.e. when the skies are clearer of passenger flights and joy riders. If the runway extension goes through, bigger planes can take off and land, potentially increasing income from passenger flights - assuming the business is there - and an increase in air freight capacity at night. I must confess I am not an expert in these matters and have not fully researched aircraft and runways, except to note that a 1799m runway will allow the take off and landing of, let us say, bigger planes. Either way it's a win-win for Stobart, a lose-lose for thousands of local residents, property values and possibly Council Tax returns, and a big gamble for Rochford and Southend Councils.

The only was the Stobart Group can make this airport viable is by landing & take off charges.

They must have freight, maintenance and passenger running around the clock to make it pay. Even putting aside the larger planes, this will be like a mini Stansted in a built up town.

Please take the time to read this information.



http://www.exeter-airport.co.uk/assets/Master%20Plan/9.%20Safeguarding.pdf



Info about Public Safety Zones Bird strikes (I think the JAAP is floored)

Also more safety info on these links which is a global standard.



http://www.air-rail.co.uk/resources/11-Walbrun+Air+Rail+Engineering.pdf



http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/IFALPA%20Statements/Airport%20Issues/09POS01%20-%20Runway%20Safety.pdf



http://www.acconline.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/AgencyComments/AC150-5325-4BComments.pdf

Please note the following comparisons, taken from the Internet.

Runway lengths. Southend. 1605m. current.
Southend 1799m. proposed.
London City. 1319m.
Southampton. 1723m.

With a Full Payload the following aircraft require a minimum runway length of:-

Airbus A310 1860m.
A318 *** 1355m. 109/118 passengers?
A319 1950m. 124/144 passengers?
A320 2090m. 179 passengers.

Boeing 737/300 1990m.
All other Boeing 737's require 2400m. plus.

*** They are looking to fly 100/150 passengers a time out of Southend, the A318 is the obvious choice, with a full payload the current runway length is more than adequate.
Even with a runway extension, the A319 could still not fly out of here with a full payload, nor could any of the Boeing 737 range, which also rules out Easyjet and Ryanair.
This poses the question, why extend the runway.
With the expense involved together with all the opposition to this, there is a strong case for leaving things as the are.
It doesn't make economic sense to fly an A319 or a Boeing 737 out of here with say a 65% payload, especially as the A318 is suitable for the present runway length.

Why not extend to 1800m. because that extra meter and above brings in a different set of regulations that the infrastructure at Southend and surrounding area is unsuitable to support.

The main runway here at Southend is known as 06/24 (060 & 240, degrees on the compass)

Direction of 'take off' and 'landing' is almost exclusively controlled by wind direction of 5 knots or greater, with a cross wind, the best direction is selected or it may well be optional.
Crosswinds approaching 30 knots will usually curtail the movements of smaller aircraft, the short runway 15/33 fell into disuse some 20,years ago, but it's still there!
The approximate frequency for direction of movements is 65-70% from runway 24 out over Leigh and of course 30-35% out over Rochford.
Pretty obvious to those under the flight path, but not everyone living elsewhere would necessarily be fully aquainted.

I support the general concept of the plan, but with the following reservations:
1) No mention is made of St Laurence and All Saints church. You cannot avoid this issue. The plan should state unequivocably that the church will not be moved, disturbed, cordonned-off or otherwise affected (apart from noise and altered access from the East). If you do not do this I expect a lot of people will object on the basis that they fear disturbance of the church.
2)The whole plan is too complicated. Not necessarily complex, just complicated. Stick to the basics of moving Eastwoodbury Lane, extending the runway, building a new passenger terminal and the railway station.

I am registering to make represntation as private individual I strongly opposed to the runway extension in 1966 the proposed extension was refused on environmental grounds It is unbelievable that Southend and Rochford Councils are even considering this The council imagines holidaymakers will take the train to the new station how many people do they known go by train at the start of there holiday they drive cars Eddie Stodart cargo planes will be flying through the night the huge jugganaughts will be traving down the 127 all hours of the day we would be unable to cope with the volume. I OBJECT TO THE RUNWAY EXTENSION

OBJECT. This will ruin the beauty of a small airport, of the surrounding areas, for the local residents near and far to the airport, cause traffic chaos, environmental problems and NO ONE wants this. I'm sure the people of Southend are happy to travel to Stansted which is a fully developed airport which can therefore be further expanded to suit the needs. Why go ahead with this, why do authorities feel the need to expand? Listen to the people, not to your pockets.

SOUTHEND BOROUGH COUNCIL & ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT: INITIAL CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS DOCUMENT

Dear Sirs
I enclose the response of the Campaign to Protect Rural Essex to this document. Please confirm receipt.
A hard copy will follow by post.
Thank you

Yours faithfully

John Drake (Director to the Executive Committee)



On behalf of CPREssex

This development should not be allowed - both councils appear to have made up their minds already! - and are determined to make any opposition as difficult to voice as possible - how else do you account for this time consuming and confusing website - its been designed to put people off of completing it!!!!

I object. I believe residents and possibly councillors are being mislead.
The JAAP is based on outdated,doubtful information carefully selected from the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper to support the case for expansion. It has been acknowledged that the White Paper must be revisited in the light of new information about climate change and the effects of the recession.

The government's independent advisory body on sustainability issues, the Sustainable Development Commission
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/presslist.php?id=77 state,
'Disputed data underpinning the government's air transport policy is making it impossible to weigh up the true benefits and impacts of aviation, and should be updated by a special commission'
'The SDC and ippr held meetings with the Government, the aviation industry, academics, NGOs and citizens' groups over a period of a year. While we expected to find areas of conflict, we were unprepared for the level of fundamental disagreement over the data underpinning the Government's whole aviation strategy'
Simon Retallack, Associate Director of The Institute for Public Policy Research, said
"Good policy-making needs to be based on evidence that is widely agreed to be sound, which is not the case when it comes to aviation policy. Before any major new decisions are taken on airports, it is vital that the evidence is looked at again through an independent and widely supported process. Establishing a special commission to do that provides the Government with the best way forward."

Areas of disagreement between government departments, the aviation industry, academics, NGOs and citizens' groups include:
• Lack of agreed measures for assessing the benefits and impacts of aviation
Although widely credited with bringing economic benefits through trade and tourism, controversy remains over:
- The benefits of inbound tourism versus the losses from outbound domestic tourism, and the impact of tourism on developing countries
- Job and wealth creation from aviation; actual levels of inward investment, and the opportunity cost to other modes of transport
- The quantifiable impact of aviation on health and well-being, particularly from noise and local air pollution

• Lack of established data on the climate impacts of aviation, and lack of clarity over the role of technology
Significant scientific uncertainties remain over:
- The contribution of aviation contrails to climate change
- The potential for technology to make significant reductions to aviation's climate impacts; how soon improvements can be made, and whether other measures must be taken in the interim

• A lack of policy coherence across government
Clashing government priorities across different departments and agencies - including promoting economic growth, meeting future travel needs, protecting the environment, addressing climate change, and ensuring the health and well-being of communities - are contributing to a lack of coherence across government.

The report also warns that decisions about UK aviation policy must not pre-empt and undermine crucial UK and international policies addressing aviation's climate impacts, including:
• The UK Climate Change Bill
• The UK Aviation Duty Consultation
• European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
• The post-2012 Bali Roadmap'

The Executive Summary of a paper produced in March 09 by Brendon Sewill http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads//Airport_jobs_false_hopes_cruel_hoax_March2009_AEF.pdf
states
1. With the current recession, when thousands are losing their jobs, any promise of more jobs is welcome. Airports and airlines for their own commercial reasons tend, however, to exaggerate the number of jobs that will be created by airport expansion.


2. Claims that airports create 'indirect', 'induced' and 'catalytic' jobs are based on dubious statistical concepts.
3. Between 1998 and 2004, despite a 30% rise in air passengers, the total employment attributed to airports and airlines actually went down.
4. Master Plans produced by each airport are inconsistent, and their employment forecasts are little better than guesses - designed to influence local councillors and planners.
5. The Airport Operators Association has forecast that by 2030 an increase of 104 % in the number of passengers passing through UK airports will produce a 21% increase in jobs at airports.
6. UK residents took 41.5 million more return flights for leisure in 2005 than foreigners came here for leisure. The aviation tourism deficit is costing the UK about 900,000 jobs as a result of people spending their money abroad instead of here.
7. Aviation - direct employment at airports and by airlines - provides under 200,000 jobs in the UK. Thus at present air travel is costing the UK roughly a net 700,000 jobs.

8. That is not a moral judgement that people ought to spend their holidays in Britain, merely a statistical fact that flying abroad creates jobs elsewhere, not in this country.

9. As a result of the Government's plans for the growth in aviation, the situation is due to get worse. By 2030 the UK tourism deficit in terms of return trips by air passengers is forecast to double, to 88.5 million.

10. The growth in air travel is likely to lead to a net loss of a further 860,000 UK jobs by 2030. This loss of jobs will affect every part of the UK.
Brendon Sewill has an economics degree from Cambridge. He has been an adviser in the Treasury, and to the British Bankers Association, a member of the Council of the National Trust, a member of the CPRE national executive, and a vice president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers.

This information is easily found on links from government sites. There is no justification for the people planning this development to be ignoring what has happened since 2003.

It is utter nonsense to say that this will help tourism - can you imagine someone flying to Southend on Sea for their holiday????
I don't believe that there will be 'significant' job opportunities - any small benefits will be far outweighed by the environmental damage and devastation to the quality of life of local people.

This is a splendid area; one of the reasons we moved here was to be near the tranquil Belfairs Woods. With no thought of local people and their quality of life, this airport expansion is being considered with purely selfish business motives at the forefront.

I am mainly concerned at the increase of aircraft noise and air pollution. Also at the transport infrastructure changes which seem to benefit no-one other than airport users (if them). More road traffic, more noise and more pollution will result in a significant reduction in the quality of life. It is difficult to find details of the planned flight paths. There seems to be no mention of noise mitigation plans. It is unreasonable to expect comments on each paragraph so this is my general comment. I apologise for the staccato presentation but your word limit is a great handicap.

As a resident living on Somerset Estate and directly on the flight path I strongly object to the proposed extension. I do not want more aircraft flying over my house, for safety reasons, environmental reasons, noise reasons and the fact that my property will be de-valued. Why would we want to bring more people into what is one of the most conjested corners of England. The conjestion on the A127 is already a joke and you people want to bring more traffic into the area. I holiday abroad frequently and driving to Gatwick or Stanstead is not an issue.

I object to the whole concept,but here are a few of my objections
1)I have no faith in the 'experts'projections, how often are they proved to be inaccurate, too many times for me.
2)The A127 cannot cope at peak times now, unless widened, and how many homes would that affect?
3) Anyone living under the flight paths will be adversley affected and no night flights except freight, well a noisy jet at 3am is still a noisy jet no matter what it is carrying
4) I fear that St Lawrences church will eventually be impacted due to flight safety concerns

this development will degrade the environment in the whole sth essex area and particularly the immediate area of the airport, approach roads and flight corridors. The argument for increased employment is totally spurious, the people who will gain from this are the owners of the land in and around the airport and the construction companies engaged for the infrastructure work. The borough and district councils should stand up for the interests of local people not just big business and a handfull of profiteers

I believe this consultation is seriously flawed. For a project as far-reaching as this, the council should surely complete and test a Strategic Environmental Impacts Assessment before it concludes the (so-called) consultation phase. How can residents and organisations understand the implications of the proposal without these data (and no wonder that most do not!).

The JAAP literature presents a completely one-eyed view of the plan with no recognition of the huge environmental downsides. The process may meet process guidleines but the council should be ashamed of its rail-roading approach.

I object to the runway extension:
1.Despite promises to the contrary more noise from aircraft is inevitable.
2.There will be night time use despite not particularly credible claims that this will be restricted.
3.Crowded and polluted streets will become more so.
4.At a time when we should be reducing carbon output the extension will increase it, thus contributing to global warming.

As a long term resident of Somerset Estate I would like to protest in the strongest terms against the proposal. My house will be directly beneath the new flight path. This will affect the value of my house immediatly.It will cause a huge increase in noise,air and environmental pollution and an even greater build up of traffic, as if we don't already have enough cars on the roads, another cause of pollution! We are already puttting up with enough noise from the airport and from aviation fuel fumes which regularly drift over the area. This is an extremely bad idea!

As a resident with children and grandchildren living in Martock Ave under the flight path I strongly object to the proposed extension. My young grandchildren run scared into the house every time a plane flies over and you cannot have a conversation in the garden when planes are flying overhead. Night flights will make it impossible to sleep. At present planes seem to fly too low, this will only increase not improve.

The A13 and A127 are congested enough without increasing traffic in the area.

Renaissance Southend Ltd supports the preparation of a Joint Area Action Plan by Southend and Rochford Councils as an appropriate means of properly planning and controlling the significant growth required in this location to meet regional and local targets for employment generation to 2021

I am totally against any expansion. It will bring nothing but misery

The introduction states that consultation on the preferred option took place in 2008. As far as I am aware, residents of Leigh on Sea (who are interested parties, living directly below the flight path) were not directly or indirectly consulted

Living on the Somerset estate directly under the flight path I cannot see a single advantage to me or others in the area from the airport developement. I could, however, write a long list of the disadavantages. I fear for a future where most of the civilised world are taking steps to combat pollution, noise, overcrowding and countless other things that contribute to global warming and the darker side of modern life but those entrusted to look after my wellbeing are actively going the other way. My view, for what its worth, is that nothing will stop this money spinner.

1.5 Preferred Options Report
We do not belive that sufficient weight has been given to the concerns in the responses to the Issues and Options consultation

I wish to object, not to the existing airport, but to its expansion. It is simply impossible to justify expansion in the current economic climate and in the light of global warming. I believe council policies should seek to reduce carbon footprints, not support avoidable increases in traffic and air pollution.

I strongly object to the plans.
Even taking into consideration the quieter planes which will be used, the noise impact will be significant on those under the flight path and local to the airport.
The road access to the airport is already overstretched, local roads and the A127 and A13 roads.
The railway line is already a busy commuter route and would not be able to support extra use during peak times, especially if those users were carrying luggage.
The proposed jobs would put additional strain on the local infrastructure, whether the workers commuted or lived in the local area.