2 Assets, Opportunities and Constraints

The Essex Chambers of Commerce strongly supports the JAAP Vision, as set out in 2.1, for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs.

I object most strongly to the Business Parks being linked with the proposed airport expansion and runway extension.There is no connection between them.According to JAAP, of the 7000 new jobs to be created(or imported)6000 are due to the business park and only 1000 to the airport.These proposals should be totally separated.The business park can be built without reference to the airport.The JAAP refers to Hi-tech and business park jobs.With a profusion of very noisy jets taking off and landing every few minutes,how many businesses does the council think would be interested in moving to this area.

You make a case for expansion, but peak oil suggests that the future is not in this direction. Please don't ruin our environment long term for short term jobs and opportunities that will evaporate. Airlines and other businesses get bought and sold or go bust- we the people of the S E Essex will always live here

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. If the business park was to be built we would need to be public transport provided to this area that at the moment is completely lacking.

It is only too clear that the Southend area needs more employment opportunities. The airport is surely one of the only major sources for such employment and its further development is very welcome. Would the objectors rather it be developed into yet another vast housing estate bringing more people into the area and no more employment? I have always lived directly in the flight path of the airport, and can testify to the fact that the future development cannot possibly bring more noisy planes the noise from which we used to have to endure in the 1970s.

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.

It is noted that the employment growth planned for London Southend Airport is to fulfil employment needs generated in Southend Borough and in Rochford District. Whilst Barratt Eastern Counties supports the growth of London Southend Airport for commercial purposes linked to the Airport and to help fulfil the employment needs of Southend Borough, which it adjoins, the strategy for providing a large proportion of Rochford's employment growth at the Airport appears unsustainable. The Airport is mainly accessed by car from Hawkwell, Rayleigh and Rochford with limited bus services along the B1013. The settlements of Hawkwell and Rayleigh in particular are not as well connected to London Southend Airport. It is not therefore considered a sustainable location for Rochford District wide employment growth. It is considered that the main settlements of Rochford, Hawkwell/Hockley and Rayleigh should be the focus of new employment growth and that the Airport be the location for Airport related development and employment growth linked to Southend.

The draft Core Strategy published in October 2008 highlights Rochford, Hawkwell/Hockley and Rayleigh as being "top tier" settlements for new housing growth and we consider that a sustainable development strategy would necessitate retention of existing employment areas and new employment growth being targeted at these locations to supplement new housing development. It is recognised that the airport and its environs could be developed with sufficient support infrastructure including employment related development but a balance needs to be struck so that unsustainable travel patterns are not created between Rochford, Southend and the Airport.

By targeting so much employment growth at the Airport there is a danger that the important open gap between the Airport/Southend and Rochford begins to close and that the two settlements coalesce. Rochford has a distinct character which would be undermined by this process. The Vision should therefore be refined to ensure that sustainable development principles and the principles embodied in PPG13 are not compromised. This will mean reconsidering at least one of the proposed employment allocations in favour of new locations at the "top tier" settlements.

Quote re expansion of airport and Rochford: ''Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options sets an emerging vision to 'make Rochford the place of choice in the county to live, work and visit''' - and make Leigh the worst place to live with 24/7 flights. What about the Leigh Core Strategy Options - NO NIGHT FLIGHTS.

Ask Southend Council their views on the idea of a Thames Estuary airport and they are against because of noise over southend, pollution and quality of life - and the fact that their homes will be affected. How many southend and rochford coucillors live in Leigh?

I am a resident of leigh - on -sea and do not see how planes regularly flying over my house and garden is going to improve my quality of life

A NW runway extension was refused by the Government Inspectorate in 1966 on environmental grounds. I bought my property in 1979, which is under the SW flight path, in Leigh-on-Sea on the basis that no expansion of the airport would ever be possible. Surely the protection of the environment is even more important now! Why do we need more industrial and office units when so many are empty in the area. I say the 1966 ruling should still apply and NO to making a mockery of the the term 'Green Belt' land.

How will a dramatic increase in the number of flights over my house, coupled with increased traffic congestion and pollution, 'ensure' my 'quality of life'?

re: Vision - the residents' quality of life will be complete impaired with the noise and pollution incurred by so many flights especially those at night.

I cannot see any advantage of having 70 flights a day, 7 days a week plus the added thought of your amount of cargo flights. Stobart hasnt bought this as a small quiet regional airport for his own personnel use. You cannot compare southend airport to stanstead, stanstead airport is purpose built and surrounded by green fields in the middle of nowhere, Southend is a seaside town, an old established and tourist town, who would fancy sittin on the sand while jets thunder over heard, i for one wouldn't.

I would like to see the airport develop as an opportunty to visit various parts of this country.

For example I would like to use links to Cornwall and Birmingham. I am sure there is a huge potential to give ordinary citizens the same convenience as exec. jet flyers.

It should be remenbered that every journey from Southend/Rochford is burdened with an extra hour and a half to get across London.

RE Vision
I do not agree with the "vision" of this JAAP since I feel very strongly about expansion in an area ill-designed to cater for this increased level of air traffic and ensuing pollution both acoustically (such increased noise levels in a natural basin of Thames estuary is not a good mix) and ecologically. This "vision" is short-sighted and purely proposed to line the pockets of the few over the needs of the many who reside and/or work in these surrounds. I do not believe this is the only solution the JAAP can suggest to help meet employment growth targets.

n

Totally enviromental disaster and the scheme should be scrapped without further cost to the ratepayer. Sufficient objections to hold full Public Enquiry.

It will be great to see a major project to benefit Southend's prosperity actually come to fruition, instead of lost opportunities like Maplin, and the eternal wrangling that goes on over the pier and seafront slippage.

2.3: I'm a local resident (Leigh on Sea) with young children. I'm concerned there is no documentation about flight paths over residential areas or guarantees against cargo flights at night. The proposed hours for passenger flights (06:30 - 23:00) would still be incredibly disruptive for local residents. The proposed expansion would seriously inhibit quality of life for those living under flight paths as well as having a detrimental impact on property prices in the area.

i strongly object about the extention because i live where the planes fly over my house and also
1 of eastwoodbury lane being closed
2 planes flying low over our house
3 it will be very hard to sleep at night

I was born and have lived in this area all my life and although the airport has always been there it has always only ever been a low volume airport even in its hay day in the 60/70s. The whole residential area has been built up with this in mind and people have moved into the area accepting the airport as it is. With the proposed expansion of the business park (5,000 extra jobs probably 3,000 extra cars a day)) and the 70 plus flights per (approx 10,000 people) I cannot see how in any way the infratructure even with some changes can cope with this increase in traffic and parking without being severley detrimental to the whole community. The A127 is already heavily congested and an accident black spot that the intrduction of a 50 mph limit has had to be imposed.
On top of that local people could only ever make up a very, very small proportion of travellers and you only have to look at the major airports in the London area that by far the majority still take their cars and expect to park reasonably near the airort. With 10,000 travellers per day and probably 80% using their cars even with 3 per car that is approx 3,000 cars for parking a day, over a 2 week period in mid sumer you could require 20,000 parking spaces where are they going to go. Unless this parking is actually on the aiport gounds you then have the added problem of parking - aiport link coaches running at regular intervals all day empty or full.

Basically YES I am trying to protect mine and all of the areas enviroment, but also with the build up of the residential areas over the years and no real option to really improve the road links the airport is now in the wrong place to expand to this level.

Alan Cable

This will result in an overdeveloped and almost certainly under used facility.Greenbelt land should be preserved. This council also claims to give great credence to 'green' issues - how can over development of the airport be a green issue? Given the projected increase in flights and road traffic.

The basic idea of improving employment prospects and the quality of life is good. However the question is whether the expansion of the airport will produce sufficient extra jobs to outweigh the extra noise, pollution and traffic. In my opinion it does not do so and the airport should not be expanded.

Quality of life will be diminished through noise and air pollution, increased traffic on the roads and increased risk of air and road accidents

I am not convinced there will be any advantage to expansion. Please view these sites for more up to date info
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/presslist.php?id=77
http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads//Airport_jobs_false_hopes_cruel_hoax_March2009_AEF.pdf

I object because you do not have to have 'noise pollution management' until you introduce noise and pollution. Both issues were raised at the 2008 consultation and apparently 'intensive research and analysis 'has been completed by the Councils since this time but there is nothing in the JAAP which gives any info let alone comfort that these matters have been seriously considered.
The vision for 2021 suggests that the A127 is a fast road and it is and never will be. Stobart who now own the airport will carry the freight that helps them make the most profit.

this council has gone behind the backs of the voters and have all ready given planning permission for this airport, stobart would not have bought this site unless at first getting permission for night flight first. the roads cannot cope at the moment, the jobs available will be for low paid workers therefore this council will bring in more even more immigrants.
why should the people in the flight path suffer extra noice and polution when stansted is just up the road. yes i object.

What a paradox - the following highlighted persuasive text is:

Rochford the place of choice in the county to live, work and visit.

NOT IF PLANES ARE CONSTANTLY GOING OVER GARDENS AND RUINING ROCHFORD'S INHABITANTS' QUALITY OF LIFE!!

Have you travelled along the A127 recently? It is already at full capacity? How on earth will our infrastructure cope with 1 - 2 million extra vehicles a year? RIDICULOUS!!!

RAIL SERVICES PARA 2.3

There is very little information on how use of the rail services to the airport would be encouraged even though the road infrastructure is inadequate. One possible option would be to link the Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street lines in the Southend area. This would be difficult and expensive but it would give direct access to the airport for all users on the Fenchurch Street service including major centres such as Basildon and Barking.

I object to the plan. It is contradictory to suggest it will improve quality of life. Mine will decrease due to increased day and night flights depositing both noise and pollution.

Local infrastructure is also inadequate to support the plans and I can see no real plans to improve major road access e.g. A127, which will result in more congestion.

Suggestions that highly skilled employment will be made are true, but this will be filled by already skilled staff, it's unlikely that local people will be trained. The employment projections also seem highly inflated.

This site alone needs a degree to navigate and even then it's difficult to work it out - most people would give up; did Southend Council have this in mind...fewer objections!
Southend Council are not considering us, the local residents, just the glory in it for them. Quality of life would be unbearable...miserable: noise, stress, blocked roads (yes, worse than now - imagine!)
John Betjamen would have real fodder. Forget Slough:
'Come friendly bombs and fall on 'Southend'
It isn't fit for humans now.....'
.......and it wouldn't be.
Do you worst Southend Council and ruin all our lives!
Your vision is certainly not 'shared'