1 Introduction

Object

Representation ID: 11002

Received: 10/05/2009

Respondent: Claire Cockburn

I wholeheartedly object to the airport expansion on the grounds of the environment, noise pollution and trafffic issues. The planes will fly directly over my house and which would ruin the quality of life in Leigh on Sea. You talk about quiet planes - they do not exist and this is nonsense. This is a great town to live in and does not need this airport expansion. The transport links are not there and there are other airports nearby. This is poure greed..

Object

Representation ID: 11107

Received: 10/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Bruce Gander

My house lies directly under the flight path, what compensation is there going to be for the loos in house value, NONE is the answer, and to use improved emplyment is a false hood, the jobs that have already been lost at the airport need to be replaced first, then how many will be left for the rest of use affected?

Object

Representation ID: 11173

Received: 10/05/2009

Respondent: Mr David Gamman

I wish to object to the planned expansion of southend airport, my reasons are as follows: 1/ The increase in noise and pollution in the area where I live. 2/ The increase in night flights which would impinge on my right to a decent nights sleep.3/ The devaluation on the value of my house. 4/ The increase in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. 5/ The increase in traffic on our already congested roads. 6/ The closure of Eastwoodbury lane. 7/ The value of everyone`s homes falling, putting even more people into negative equity.

Object

Representation ID: 11503

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Brent Lee Wheatley

It is pointless objecting as the Council(s) have already decided to follow the "preferred option" of full expansion, despite the numerous valid objections on a variety of issues. The Council must impose extensive ("section 106)" controls over all airport operating matters including night flights etc. Why is this web-site so cumbersome ?... as its sole purpose just seems to confuse and put genuine objections being lodged!

Object

Representation ID: 11577

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Janet Walker

These proposals give me no confidence that the inevitable increase in damage to the climate through pollution, noise disturbance to immediate neighbours and increase in congestion in the surrounding area have been adequately addressed. The assertion that expansion of the airport will bring a large number of jobs is more than adequately countered by the document found at http://www.aef.org.uk/uploads/Airport_jobs___false_hopes_cruel_hoax.pdf

Object

Representation ID: 11630

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Green Party

I object to the airport expansion (it exacerbates climate change).

Object

Representation ID: 11680

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: mr simon milner

Despite finding this web site particularly difficult to navigate, we are determined to voice our objections very stongly to the expansion of Southend Airport on many grounds, as listed below: -

1) NOISE POLLUTION

2) INCREASE IN ROAD TRAFFIC

3) DEVALUATION OF HOUSE VALUES

4) LARGE INCREASES IN AIR POLLUTION

5) LOSS OF YET MORE GREEN AREAS

6) FLIGHT TIMES TOO LATE

ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE A FEW BENEFITS FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE NEGATIVES FAR OUT WAY ANY POSITIVES.

STOP THE EXPANSION NOW!

Comment

Representation ID: 11699

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: Ms Sharon Allsop

Who at RDC and SOSBC are preparing the JAAP? Is it being prepared by people who know the local area well? Do they know and understand the local infrastructure and traffic flows? Especially during peak times. How have they come to their conclusions? Especially in relation to jobs created.
My biggest concern is that it is being prepared by an external consultancy e.g. those based in London who are obtaining data from statistical sources. Such individuals cannot possibly understand the local impact of the plans.

Object

Representation ID: 11708

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Christine McLeod

I object to the JAAP proposal as there appears to be no detailing of: number of day/night flights; the types/size of freight/passenger planes expected; alternative or extra infrastructure for unspecified increase in freight/passenger road transport. I am being asked to approve vague proposals that will devalue my property, disturb my right to peace both day and night, and increase the possibility of a (future) major incident within the extended south-west flightpath. I object to the complete disregard of the negative effect on the local environment, the Government reason for the refusal of the 1966 plan to extend the NW/SE runway.

Object

Representation ID: 11721

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: SE Essex Organic Gardeners

We regard any proposal to develop agricultural land, and an allotment site, in order to advance aviation activity and thereby contribute to climate change - which will further damage the UK's food security - as an unsustainable and perverse policy.

Object

Representation ID: 11866

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Austins

As aa accountancy business based on the Temple Farm Industrial Estate I can only imagine that increased useage of the airport will only add to the pollution in the area, will bring to a halt an already overstrtched road system and will increase noise levels to the point where it will be difficult if not impossible to concentrate on the work in hand and I would have to look for alternative offices a good distance away from the airport and the problems it will create.

Comment

Representation ID: 12019

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Gareth Evans

I consider this consultation to be lacking vital information and therefore completely incapable of supporting any decisions about the development of the airport.

I suggest that you review your position and consult again providing detailed information about the issues that matter to poeple.

Object

Representation ID: 12075

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Nicolette Denkmayer

I believe the whole process has been flawed.

Much of the data used is outdated.

Object

Representation ID: 12149

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Peter Walker Chess Coachin

PWCC objects to this proposal

Object

Representation ID: 12211

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: miss annabel challis

I object to the airport because of environmental issues. Stansted and Gatwick have more land around them and have been properly set up to run as an airport. Southend is too built up to run in the same way. What will happen to the wildlife in the area? Also I understand that any employment will be advertised abroad and we will not be employing people in this country, how will this help our unemployment rate?

Object

Representation ID: 12325

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Cowan

I strongly object to the proposed expansion as I cannot see how the changes can be implemented and a successful business run, based the the information in this document.
The green belt land should not be raped for industrial use, there are plenty of brown sites in the borough that could be used.
Council tax must be reduced for those on the fight path, due to reduced home values.

Object

Representation ID: 12330

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr ROGER PICKFORD

I wish to formally record my objection to the expansion. Comments are that the plan is ill conceived insofar as the airport is situated in the middle of the densest population area. The increased noise pollution and traffic generated will be detrimental to the quality of life of residents and will produce little or no compensating benefit. As my house is situated under the flight path, I wish to formally record that in the event of the expansion proceeding I shall seek compensation for loss of value to my house and a council tax reduction.

Object

Representation ID: 12395

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carol Woods

Point 1.3
Not sure how such a sustainabilility proposal can concluded there is a need for urban sprawl, and the need to eat into green belt land. Particularly when there are so many underutilized sites in Southend. The empty offices down Victoria Avenue, the empty Victoria Shopping Centre with no shops. In many cases sites are poorly occupied because the buildings are old and obsolete. Focusing development in the centre of town and utilising sites close to Victoria Station will make for far more sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 12407

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carol Woods

Also the close proximity of this development will have a material adverse affect on the quaint beauty of Rochford, and be detrimental to Hall Road which will have increased traffic.

1.5
I believe you are creating a runway which will serve far greater than 2 million passengers. We are told to look at Southampton, which has the same runway length. With respect this is located in a different part of the country. Southend is located a short distance from London the catchment is far greater, by extending the runway you are in affect creating a THIRD NEW runway in

Object

Representation ID: 12410

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carol Woods

the South East. The white Paper only envisaged 2. One at Heathrow the other at Stansted. Southend is supposed to remain a SMALL local airport, not compete or be a substitute for Stansted's runway. We are going one step too far and creating another MAJOR london airport. This not sustainable. City has a shorter runway and has 3 million passengers. Once Southend has built the station they should be able to compete for traffic like City. Keeping the runway length the same length, keeps the airport local, and allows growth at a steady rate.

Object

Representation ID: 12412

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carol Woods

Allowing the runway extension will in effect be permitting us to be like Stansted. There will be far more than 2 million passengers, (Stansted has 20 million). The majority of people using the airport will probably be Londoners, and not local. I don't believe the economic benefits will justify the violation of our environment. The purpose of Southend Airport in the White Paper was to help Stansted, not be a substitute for it.

Object

Representation ID: 12423

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Evelyn Fitchew

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.

Object

Representation ID: 12519

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Malone

I object to the proposed expansions. There are already enough airports serving this area of the UK. As for more trade flights using older noisier and more polluting aircraft, this is going to cause far more harm to the environment when we are supposed to be fighting against climate change. I do not feel that the increased job opportunities will benefit the local community enough to be worthwile. The majority of the low paid jobs will more likely go to overseas low paid workers.

Object

Representation ID: 12555

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Royle

This 'consultation' process is not worthy of the name. It appears to have been designed to discourage participation, and to allow comments to be discounted upon technicalities where residents do summon the energy to navigate through its opacity. This is a further example of the councils' disinterest in the views of those residents affected by these proposals, following on from the previous stages which appear to have been conducted in near secrecy. If the pursuit of this undemocratic process continues, the continued support of the electorate should not be expected.

Object

Representation ID: 12604

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Miss Jennifer Swift

I object to the proposed expansions. More flights will lead to more noise and pollution when we are supposed to be fighting against climate change.

Object

Representation ID: 12692

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: gillian moore

I strongly object. The JAAP does not take into account the adverse impacts on communities on the south side of the River Thames especially the Hoo Peninsula.The JAAP does not take into account the adverse impacts on amenity caused by noise and loss of visual amenity in this tranquil area. Residents have already complained to Southend Airport about arriving large aircraft using runway 06 lowflying over the village of Cliffe Rochester Kent.The JAAP does not appear to take into account the adverse impacts of CO2 emissions from aviation, not just locally but nationally and internationally

Object

Representation ID: 12744

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Joan Darwell

Climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet We are not obliged to cater for the predicted demand for air travel. The sector makes a disproportionate contribution to climate change and should be included in targets for cutting emissions There should not be an assumption that there is a requirement to develop the airport at all
Expansion of Southend will undoubtedly act as a driver for increased CO2 emissions at a time when national, regional and local government should be
acting to prevent damaging climate change

Object

Representation ID: 12774

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Eric Hoile

Not sufficient develoment of road infrastructure within the WHOLE rea. Too limited a view on traffic movement, noise, polution etc within Southend and Rochford and surrounding region.
Go back to Maplin, that was a far better plan with major motorway additions. It appears people are less important that wildlife and birds which I believe was the main reason for Maplin not starting.

Object

Representation ID: 12827

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan West

I object to any expansion of the airport as this would have an adverse effect on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 12879

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: J Trent

I strongly object to the development of Southend Airport.
My main concern personally is "flight blight" for which I will be applying for compensation.
Stobart is a cargo carrier first and foremost and as flying times for this are unregulated, who do we contact after 10pm?
Why disrupt the peace and green land - a lung for the population of Southend - for such empty objectives when much larger airports (e.g. Birmingham) are making redundancies?
People will not come by plane to Southend and stay to holiday here? They want London and travel via Gatwick/Heathrow that have large passenger networks.