2 Assets, Opportunities and Constraints

Renaissance Southend Ltd supports the vision and objectives set out in the JAAP, as being in line with existing policy at national and regional level, and reflecting the importance of the Airport to Southend's economic regeneration and development, as set out in the Southend Regeneration Framework 2007 and Economic Development & Tourism Strategy 2008

I object to the expansion of the runway due to concerns ragarding the
environmental affect it will have on our local community, such as:
increase of aircraft traffic(including freight) throughout day and night
increase of freight on already congested roads
environmental issues such as noise/air pollution
the detrimental affect it will have on local peoples quality of life

The vision specifically states that one of its objectives is "...ensuring the quality of life for its residents..." I object to this proposal, as I do not believe the proposal to increase aircraft traffic will improve the quality of life for residents below the flightpath & those using the already congested roads (in fact I believe it will erode the quality of life for these people).

I fail to see how any expansion of the airport will meet the vision of 'ensuring quality of life for its residents' or the aim 'quality of life for all its citizens'
Any expansion of the airport will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for local residents.

Quote "..ensuring the quality of life for its residents and workers". The quality of life for residents (council tax paying, voting residents) is paramount and will be significantly diminished by the proposals. Noise and other environmental nuisance (guaranteed increase) far outweigh any (uncertain) forecast ecomomic benefit. For many there will be negative economic impact given the likely impact on house values.

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

The 2021 view emphasises the passenger aspect and plays down the freight side of the proposal which will have a greater impact on local road infrastructure. The junction of Eastwoodbury Lane at Nestuda Way has not been detailed and I believe that the Tesco roundabout on the A127 is already at capacity during peak periods. There is no planning for alternative routes beyond the JAAP area, effectively ignoring current congestion at The Bell, Cuckoo Corner and further to the east as well as the bottleneck at Kent Elms Corner and further westwards. A new northern corridor is required.

Given that, in this time of economic downturn, money for expansion plans of any sort is bound to be limited, it strikes me as foolish in the extreme to plan for schemes which will become redundant as soon as the oil on which they depend is due to run out, or at least become prohibitively expensive, in a relatively short time.

Whilst the idea may be to increase employment, how much of that employment will be found locally and how much will be brought in?

Access to the airport for freight or by passengers will only make the roads even more congested and even if some of this is handled by rail, freight trains will disrupt the busy commuter timetable making it even more difficult to reach London in a reasonable time.

In addition why on earth is consideration being given to increasing flights into an airport surrounded by a vast residentail area, adding both to the dangers and noise levels.

The whole concept of 'queit' jets is unfounded.

There is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane. What we will have is a large increase in flights and noise pollution.

As for fuel 'effiecient jets', this is also misleading.

The section referring to 'fast road access to the A127' is laughable. Traffic congestion on the A127 and A13 is already significant. Increasing passenger flights to 1-2million travellers a year will cause gridlock to Southend raods.

If large amount of freight is moved huge,noisy lorries will jam the main routes into the town turning many smaller roads into 'rat runs'.

The "Objectives of the JAAP" - 4th bullet states -
"Ensuring a high quality environment for residents whether expressed through noise pollution management or protection of green space".
Where is this "ensuring" if there will be night fligths permitted for freight aircraft flying over Canvey Island/Leigh/Belfairs/West Leigh? Residents need to be permitted to SLEEP

PWCC objects to this proposal

The airport will not create the number of jobs it purports, and if does produce the number of jobs it purports, then we would end up have the same passenger numbers as Standsted. In short the increase in jobs brought to the area are not worth the Jet fuel emissions, increased car washing,loss of air quality, and associated health risks. More congestion on the trains due to airport users compromising the use of the train by existing commuters.

2.3
It is remote from the proposed train station. There is no mention of any Creches or shops, bars or Cafes. We have enough rot in the town centre without exasperating it. You propose to attract high tech business. Surely any development you plan should reflect the unemployment profile of the people in our area. Most of these are blue collar, and is the reason why the banks and institutions have based their service centres in the Town to capatilize on the cheap workforce. Surely your development proposals should match your community employment requirement criteria.

I fail to see how any expansion of the airport will meet the vision of 'ensuring quality of life for its residents' or the aim 'quality of life for all its citizens'
Any expansion of the airport will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for local residents.

I object to the development of the airport, whether through the JAAP or otherwise. Creating a busy transport hub will decrease residents' quality of life (traffic congestion, noise pollution and air pollution) and is not compatible with Southend-on-Sea Core Strategy (which promotes 'the quality of life for all its citizens') or Rochford Core Strategy Preferred Options (which aims to 'make Rochford the place of choice in the county to live, work and visit').

There is also no evidence, either here or in the JAAP Evidence Base, that airport development is a key factor in increasing local employment.

I object to any inference that extending the runway to enable the use of modern aircraft will result in an acceptable level of noise pollution. Modern planes may be quieter, especially when they are at cruising altitude, but the noise generated by jet engine is still significant during take-off and landing. Where are the noise contour maps that would help make it clear which areas of the town will be worst affected? Additionally, whilst individual aircraft may be quieter, the fact that so many more will be used each day means that the disturbance will be far greater that infrequent use of older, noisier aircraft.

I fail to see how any expansion of the airport will meet the vision of 'ensuring quality of life for its residents' or the aim 'quality of life for all its citizens'
Any expansion of the airport will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for local residents.

I support the vision and objectives set out in the JAAP, as being in line with existing policy at national and regional level, and reflecting the importance of the Airport to Southend's economic regeneration and development, as set out in the Southend Regeneration Framework 2007 and Economic Development & Tourism Strategy 2008.

On page 7 The S-o-S Core Strategy (adopted December 2007) has as its aim and finishes with
AND THE QUALTIY OF LIFE FOR ALL ITS CITIZENS. How can it be possible to claim this when surrendering the right to uninterrupted sleep and the breathing of clean air to the Airport Operator 24/7 by the joint Councils? The quality of life of those citizens living within the approach flightpath is obviously expendable. Can a reply be given to this please?

There should be no expansion of aviation
I object to the proposed expansion plans due to the contribution it will make to climate change and the impacts this will have on biodiversity.Any expansion at airports in the Thames Gateway will make it impossible for the Thames Gateway to achieve its emissions targets.It is NOT sensible to rely on one major employer in any area as downturns in the aviation industry would be disastrous for employment. Rochford will become a place to AVOID and the quality of life for all its residents and indeed humanity as a whole will be dramatically reduced

Constraints
There should be no expansion of aviation
I object to the proposed expansion plans due to the contribution it will make to climate change and the impacts this will have on biodiversity.Any expansion at airports in the Thames Gateway will make it difficult,probably impossible for the Thames Gateway to achieve its emissions targets
I do not see the need for any future expansion of the airport it would be
unsustainable given the the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions

I am writing to STRONGLY OBJECT to the preferred "High Growth" option put forward for the following reasons:
1)1st phse consultation of preferred optns were IGNORED,and are not representative of the local community.
2)Environmental impact - huge jet engines polluting hundreds of residents on a daily basis
3)Increased aircraft noise and the increased number of planes - Living directly over the flight path will be gravely detrimental to our lives, this will be made worse as my daughter will attend one of the schools hugely affected - She is entitled to an education!
4)Increased road traffic - the A127 & A13 cannot cope with the current traffic & will not cope with anymore! Plans for extension (How?), will be funded by the council and government!! Which equates to US, the TAXPAYER, paying for something we do not want. I Travel the A127 daily and the traffic is immense now.
5)Quality of life will be destroyed - We all know when planning applications are put forward, the council are not interested in this type of view as it is not a justified reason for refusing permission, (having personally encountered an unwanted approved planning application on a property next to mine). However, this is on a grand scale, these planes will be large, noisy, pollutiong the air and the sleep deprivation will be awful. This will affect the whole of the southend and leigh community, hundreds of people. All because of greed, due to the preferred high growth option. It is time to listen to the people who pay the wages of the councellors!
6) One of the most worrying objections is what would happen if there were an aircraft brought down from the sky. The devestation would be catastrophic. Where are the plans, what would happen? WOuld the pilot land; on the A127 or on the residents of Leigh. Either option does not bear thinking about.
7)The Brent Geese that migrate to anf from Leigh marshes twice yearly, which again would be in the middle of the flight path. Surely these are protected? and also a very grave possibility of causing a complete engine failure should an accident occur (as with the incident in the hudson river).
8) Again this is of no consequence to the council when considering application. However. our property would be further devalued because of living directly under the proposed flight path. At a time when our economy is in such a mess. We do not need more reasons to create negative equity.

I strongly object to any increase in the number of night flights, i.e. between 9pm and 7am.
I also object to any increase in the number of day time flights.

Most specialist workers will need to be brought in from other areas as short of a couple of apprenticeship schemes for youths and un-employable youngsters, there is little aircraft maintenance expertise in the area.
Ask yourselves, are we developing the airport to provide jobs, or because we actually need an airport? Southend should be proud of it's Seaside Town reputation and build on that (i.e. put money into the pier etc)not try to make the Town something that it is not.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and locality on account of the sizeable and indisputable increase in aircraft noise, air pollution and road traffic. As a resident caught beneath flight paths, this will significantly damage my quality of life and devalue house prices.
JAPP provides paltry evidence that expansion will coincide with economic prosperity, indeed even the employment opportunities quoted relate almost wholly to Saxon Park - jobs merely transferred from Eldon Way.
The designated green spaces are inadequate; the meagre network of walk/cycle routes a preposterous sweetener.
In this economic climate, the development is irresponsible.

The proposals
1. are ill- conceived, with a dramatic lack of properly evaluated evidence contrasted with hypothesis presented as fact
2. will result in an unacceptable loss of green belt land
3. fail to properly reflect the other transport infrastucture effects, particularly as regards the inadequate road provision and the imapct on other rail users
4. ignore totally the Nottingham Declaration
5. represent gross over development
6. will result in unacceptable levels of air pollution
7. will result in unacceptable levels of noise pollution
8. will result in unacceptable levels of light pollution
9. will result in unacceptable levels of water pollution
10. are certain to have a detrimental effect on property values
11. will have an insignificant effect on local employment
12. fail to properly evaluate the necessary Public Safety Zone
13. will adversely affect public health, through the breathing noxious fumes & stress of disturbed sleep from excessive night flights.

1. The proposed development can only bring prosperity to the local community if the majority of the anticipated employment is for local people. Can local residents be assured that this will happen? Have procedures been established to streamline the matching of job opportunities to recruitment of local residents seeking employment.
2. The proposal assumes that employees at the airport will arrive on foot or cycle. This will definitely not be the case if jobs are not filled by local people. But given our climate, and people's natural aspirations, it is unrealistic to assume that more than a small minority of employees will walk or cycle to work. Have any surveys of existing employees at the airport or in Aviation Way been carried out as to how they commute to work? Essex County Council has now acknowledged that our Government's policies to restrict the number of motorists are nonsense and has decided to ignore them. It was these policies that created garages too small to house cars and the ridiculous situation whereby RBS were not allowed, or even encouraged, to create enough car parking spaces for the staff at their new card centre near Netsuda Way. Since then local residents have been complaining bitterly about RBS employee's cars littering the streets because there is no room for them to park at their place of employment. The result of these policies has been inconvenience for workers faced with a long walk at the start and finish of work and annoyance for the residents. It is essential that the Councils realistically assess the car parking facilities needed and ensure that these are provided.
3. Apart from the new railway station car park and the park and ride facility there is no mention of parking facilities for airport or business park employees, or for the two million new passengers. We need to follow the lead of Essex County Council and take a more realistic approach to motorists and so parking proposals need to be much more specific. If Southend is to become a regional hub for European flights we must have forecasts as to how many travellers will use public transport and how many will want to park their cars on-site. Parking provision should then be created accordingly. Policy LS2 talks of modal split targets. What are they and how do they relate to the present day?
4. During the discussions regard the new Southend football stadium there was much talk of park and ride facilities. To date the first definate proposal for a park and ride site is the one shown on the plan at Netsuda Way. The area of this site is not large and there is no mention as to whether this facility is intended for:-
1. Airport off-site short/long term parking
2. Short term car parking for central Southend shoppers
3. Short term parking for football supporters attending the new stadium
4. Any other purpose
Without knowing the intended purpose, the anticipated demand or capacity of the park and ride facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility need to be provided. There also needs to be further discussion as to the siting of this facility. Presumably no access from the eastbound lane of the A127 has been included because there are already traffic problems at the Southbourne Grove exit. But the Tesco/RBS roundabout is already sufering gridlock at times and introducing further queuing at a new roundabout only 300 metres away in Netsuda Way will add to the traffic congestion in this area.
5. Under 'Vision and Objectives' the document states....there is a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings to achieve measurable improvements in the town's economic prosperity, transportation networks, infrastructure and facilities, and the quality of life for all its citizens. It is hard to know what this sentence is trying to say but surely it is more important to release the potential of the town's workforce than land and buildings? The next paragraph goes on to mention SO11...providing for significant new employment opportunities and improved surface access. The only way that will happen on anything other than a short term basis is by radically upgrading the road infrastructure in the area.
Southend has long been in need of a completely new east-west highway to the north of the A127, linking the A130 to Great Wakering with north-south feeder links into the various districts of Southend. To date, the Council has never requested such a new road from Essex County Council despite the fact that County Hall has said it has no objection to such a scheme. The result of this neglect of our road infrastructure has been the steady loss of thousands of jobs every year from Southend to Basildon and other areas with better road links. The only new road envisaged in these proposals is a link from Eastwoodbury Lane to Netsuda Way and the only justification for this new piece of road is that the extended runway will go over the old road. Other than that we are promised the usual improvements to foothpaths and cycleways. It is high time Southend Council got a grip on the reality of the situation that, apart from London workers, the overwhelming majority of people commuting to work in south-east Essex are car drivers and therefore road users. Southend residents and visitors to the town deserve better than having to queue on the A127 every time they want to travel. Without adequate roads and adequate car parking any expansion of the airport is doomed to merely create more chaos in the town.
6. The document contains no discussion as to why the existing Eastwoodbury Lane route cannot simply be replaced in a tunnel under the runway at the same site. We understand that there is concern that this route would be directly beneath the impact point of landing planes but there must be some merit in considering tunnelling 100-150 metres distant. Given the amount of concrete being used for the new runway it would surely be cheaper to keep as closely as possible to the present route in this manner rather than creating a new road that involves a one mile detour for anyone accessing Aviation Way from the east. If Eastwoodbury Lane were tunnelled it would also be an opportunity to expand the length of dual carriageway from the northern end of Nestuda Way. The new road as shown would terminate at a new roundabout only some 300 metres distant from the one at the southern end of Netsuda Way. This roundabout is already regularly gridlocked and so another new junction in such close proximity will only add to the existing traffic chaos. The document also says that a contribution for the construction will be sought from the developer but since the road is a direct replacement to enable the runway to be lengthened then the developer should pay the whole cost of construction.
7. Under 2.3 the document states...a modern terminal building...with fast road access to the A127. Is Southend Council envisaging increasing the current speed limit of 30mph between these two points? Even if they were, there seems little point in so doing since speedy arrival at the A127 would only equate to a rush to get into the usual gridlock. There is no point in having in fast road access to a heavily congested route where motorists travel daily at walking pace.
8. Section 3 Issue 4 raises a number of questions. There are no details of proposed SERT routes and these need to be provided. At the very least the SERT transport system should be fully integrated into public transport links from the airport to the town centre.
Once again there is a return to fantasy with the statement 'Opportunities to encourage a modal shift to reduce current levels of car borne traffic...John Prescott said something similar in 1997 and despite his aspirations the number of cars on the roads has increased annually ever since. Will all Council employees undertake to walk, cycle or use public transport to work in all weathers for the next 12 months? Try persuading them. Yet the public are constantly being pressurised by those in authority with statements and wish-lists this like this. Why should people be expected to take an uncomfortable means of transport to work and quite possibly ruin decent office clothing when it rains when their motivation to work hard has been to avoid this sort of discomfort? The statement continues ...'through traffic management solutions....' A traffic management solution by definition would speed the flow of cars whilst allowing for an increase in volume of traffic. Your 'solution' as written would seek to place further obstacles in the way of drivers in order to try and discourge them from using the roads which is totall unacceptable. You then state'...improvements to public transport...'If you mean that public transport would be so improved as to make car travel second choice this is unlikely in the extreme. This same statement carries on'...improvements to walking and cycling facilities'. As stated previously, improvements like these will be of no consequence to the vast majority of residents.
The next statement concerns amongst others 'the provision of new routes' but gives no indication as to where these may be planned for. The illustrated extension to Eastwoodbury Lane could hardly be considered a new route. Once again there is a paucity of detail and there is no mention of the desperately needed new east-west trunk road.
9. The London Southend Airport Introduction, Page 20 states in paragraph 4 that the transport infrastructure is at present inadequate to cope with expansion of the airport. It describes the proximity of the airport to the A127 as being close to a strong connection (part of the south Essex's strategic highway network) which would be laughable were the daily reality of this route not so tragic. As previously stated, there is no point in anyone rushing from the airport straight into gridlock. As for rushing to the airport, the prospect becomes ever more terrible with the recent introduction of a 50mph limit over a 4 miles section of the A127 that had been 70mph for the previous 50 years. Presumably this is part of the traffic management solution as described earlier. Road, cycleway and pavement improvements, as described will make absolutely no difference whatever to the speed of access or egress and these comments are inserted so airily as to confirm that there is absolutely no grasp of the reality of the subject under discussion. Put simply; our existing road system is totally inadequate; people are not going to stop driving their cars; there will definitely be more cars on our roads in 12 months time; we need a new east-west trunk route to the north of the A127. We simply cannot afford to have any further developments or expansions in this borough until we have a new road.
10 Whilst the document acknowledges shortcomings in the road infrastructure there is no mention of the pressures this development will place on other aspects of the overall infrastructure. Two million passengers a year translates into greater demand for medical facilities and these are already at full stretch in this area. The new terminal will need adequate toilet facilities for 5,000 plus travellers a day but Southend's Environmental Director has recently told us that waste water treatment and drainage is at capacity.
11. The new terminal as illustrated on the site plan appears very small when compared to the retail outlets nearby. Will it be big enough?
12. Will the new railway station have lifts to ensure easy access to both platforms for travellers with luggage as well as for the disabled? Will similar facilities be installed at all other stations on the Liverpool Street line? Will travellers to the new station be offered cheap fares? If they are not, the the Councils must be aware that the majority of travellers will prefer to either drive themselves and park at the airport or use a taxi. either way there will be more car traffic. The current economics are such that it is far cheaper and easier for a group of four people with luggage to take a taxi from as far afield as Wickford rather than use the train.
13. Transport within the JAAP refers to increased investment in the local highways network. We need a great deal more than the proposed upgrades for any airport expansion to be viable.
14. The application is detrimental to the environment if there is an increase in the number of night flights over and above the current level which is approximately 100 per night/week/month? Residents will want assurance that this number will not be increased.
15. The overall impact of this project could potentially be monstrous. Can the Councils guarantee that the environment and local communities will be protected?
16. If the airport expansion proceeds the Councils will need to guarantee the protection of St Lawrence Church.
17. Has the possibility of increased noise levels on landing and takeoff been sufficiently appraised to avoid loss of amenity to local residents? The noise footprint as illustrated for the purpose of describing the noise from the new quieter jets may be irrelevant if noiser aircraft are allowed access to the airport because of the increase in runway length. If such aircraft are allowed then we need another footprint plan drafted. Some information is required as to the likely noise impact of increasing the airport capacity to 2 million people per annum. Residents can have no appreciation of the impact without providing noise contours and noise levels as between now and the capped limit. Furthermore it cannot be the case that some additional open space can mitigate the environmental impact. A more honest approach is necessary to put in context the additional noise, disturbane, smells, traffic dangers and congestion which residents will have to endure.
18. Will there be a re-appraisal of the viability of this project in light of the recent budget increase in air passenger duty?
Southend has long been overdue a radical overhaul of infrastructure - particularly of our roads. Residents are sick to death of the constant hot air about 'improvements to foothpaths and cycleways' especially when they waste hours every week crawling along the A127. There is now a very strong opinion throughout this town that there should be no further development of any sort until our Council has commenced construction of a new east-west trunk road to the north of the A127.
Contrary to commonsense and against the wishes of the majority of the town's resident's the Council has forged ahead with massive overdevelopment in recent years. The Council has recently stated that a more considered view of expansion will be taken in future. Perhaps it should start now by expending some real effort on a proper set of plans for a decent infrastructure for the town and its residents.
Provided the noise and environmental issues were properly addressed and we had a decent infrastructure in place it is likely that the majority of us would welcome an expanded airport that afforded us the opportunity to jet off all over Europe from our doorstop. However, given our current circumstances the proposal is a wish too far. Before continuing discussion regarding expansion of the airport we need more information as requested in the foregoing. We would also earnestly request that Southend Council commence urgent discussions about the radical improvements we need for our road infrastructure; that is a new east-west trunk road.

The land proposal involves building a million square feet of buildings mostly on Green Belt Land. It also involves increasing flights from the Airport which will increase carbon dioxide emissions. If the airport does not expand those emissions will not take place. It is an absolute nonsense to waste reams of paper and time not to mention resources discussing putting in cycle paths if any possible benefit is totally eclipsed by new aircraft movements and increased pollution from grid locked vehicles on our local roads.
The consultation fails totally to deal with the increased road traffic which will be generated not only by some two million extra passengers but also by the extra freight movements and vehicle movements involved with the new industrial space. The suggestion that a road will be provided to the A127 is a joke bearing in mind that the road is already at saturation point much for the day and now restricted to a maximum of 50 miles an hour as far as Basildon. There is no commitment to upgrade the A127.
Clearly the other surrounding roads cannot cope and are not capable of handling the increased traffic. Whilst the new train station will go a little way towards accommodating some passenger traffic it will do nothing for freight and only serve a proportion of passenger traffic.
This will increase carbon emissions in two ways firstly from the increase in vehicle movements and secondly from the increase in congestiion which will lead to further emissions from the existing level of traffic. Any suggestion that public transport will cater for the new industrial areas is pie in the sky as at present there are railway stations in the borough without peak bus services. If these are not viable it is certain that ones serving these areas will not be. Cycling as a solution is a red herring as it only applies applies to a very limited number of people in good weather. In addition were it to be used more widely the effects on traffic congestion on the main roads would be counter productive as cycles slow down and impede vehicle traffic. One cannot do a major shop on bicycle nor take the children to school or comfortably undertake most journeys. In fact there now seems to be a trend towards increased road journeys. In fact there now seems to be a trend towards increased road journeys to access attractive areas in which to cycle!

Comments and Objections
The regeneration of London Southend Airport cannot be achieved by building a business park. Nor does a business park depend upon the extension of the runway.
Set out specific standards which will be applied to the area. Standards of what, exactly? - behaviour? - building control? - road width? - signage?
The JAAP takes into account the impact of the proposals on other parts of Southend Borough Council areas, I don't think it does, there are at least 60,000 people and pupils in 10 schools likely to be adversely affected by increasing the flight capacity of the airport. Some of the aircraft may well be quieter than others, but there is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane. The higher a plane goes on take-off, by using a longer runway and a steeper ascent, the wider the 'noise footprint' will be. Surely that is a matter of basic physics. To attain the greater speed on the runway, the number of revs will increase, creating greater ground noise than at present. Also, as one aircraft is taking off, another will be preparing for take-off at peak times, a constant noise for all the houses around the take-off area.'Impact on...the existing built environment...' A possible 6 houses demolished for the runway to Eastwoodbury Lane and the brickfield cottages on Cherry Orchard Lane demolished for the business park. '...including listed buildings.' The church of St Laurence is a Grade One listed building, accepted by the CAA as a hazard. It is in constant use. The vibration caused by aircraft movements could surely endanger this beautful old church. The (admittedly remote) chance that a plane could strike the church and 130 worshippers must also be considered.
The 'Issues and Options' report was quietly introduced in the summer of 2008. It was not trumpeted loudly, but hidden in a website backwater for comments from those that could find it.
'The feedback...has been carefully considered and used'. The analysis was published in March 2009. When SAEN queried the statement on the penultimate page of the document, 'most respondents did not favour the high-growth option, they were told that 'this is not a referendum; it is a consultation'. So it would seem that views were asked for and then ignored. No wonder people say that the whole thing is a foregone conclusion!
'The economic benefits of the expansion in air travel' should be re-examined in the light of falling figures relating to air travel. The only airline operating regularly from Southend Airport has already gone into liquidation last winter - a victim of the credit crunch, not a victim of a runway that was too short.
The growing pressure on airports in the South-East is a pressure generated by the huge success of Stansted airport as a passenger terminal. Stansted is one hour away from Southend on the X30 bus; a comfortable journey with room for your luggage also, and a frequent service from the town.
Another pressure will be that the London Southend Airport has to consider that a drop-off point is now not to be too near a terminal building and other forms of security need to be addressed. There may be a 6 foot fence on the southern boundary, but a footpath that actually crosses the disused short runway to the north would have to be considered a security threat.
'Significant job opportunities' is a statement which must be challenged. There will not be any significant job opportunities connected to the airport until the airport starts to cater for millions of passengers. The jobs referred to in the booklet will almost exclusively provided by units in the Saxon Business Park. 'The Region's competitve strength and attractiveness as a business location and tourism destination.' Before Southend sees itself as a business location or a tourism destination, it needs to take a long hard look at what it does want to be. For some decades now. Southend Borough Council has been drying to ignore the fact that it is a seaside town. It is not a centre of things, it is on the coast. It is already well served by two rail lines for those who wish to come to the beach. It is only safe to swim when the tide is coming in (which it does twice a day), not when it is going out. When the tide is out, what should the visitor do? Visit the Pier? Why? There hasn't been enough cash in the kitty for years to develop the pier into a going concern, mostly due to an overspend on expensive consultants and lack of competent decision making. Visit the penny arcades, the pubs the shopping centre, visit Leigh and buy cockles go to the fun fair? Yes, but the airport is 3 miles away from all that, so after your flight, you will need a bus, (there are still a few left still running) or a taxi to the seaside. On the way, you may pass the remains of the Ecko site, the town's once-huge industry, or you pay pass the muli-storey buildings in Victoria Avenue, now derelict and unused, no longer the centres of commerce that they once were.
So, before Southend Borough Council addresses the question of the airport, which is 90% in Rochford anyway, perhaps they should expend a little effort, time and money considering the town's identity - you cant ignore the fact that it is a seaside town; commerce has failed hugely and manufacture is not what it once was, probably due to European influence and computer networking.
How does the local policy framework foresee Southend airport acting as a key driver for economic development? There is not enough detail given in the document.
With expansion of the airport'... issues of congestion and accessibility in and around the JAAP area...need to be addressed. And it will all have to be done at the same time. Public accounts of any difficulties experienced whilst getting to the airport are more than likely to be negative. People accept the good inherent in things but complain loudly when they are confronted by obstacles!
'Local policies support the growth of the airport' but local opinion, whilst largely embracing the airport as it is at present, is not generally in favour of the extension. The MRO sector should be safeguarded. However as the number of passengers increases towards 2 million, as proposed, the opportunity to test planes on the runway will necessarily decrease, pushing these older, noisier planes into times when passenger movements are less, that is to say, evenings and night times.
I object to the wording in this paragraph because it implies that London Southend Airport will be providing significant employment opportunities, when the facts are that the employment opportunities will arise when the Saxon Business Park is completed. Even then, there are several respondents to SAEN who understand that the jobs are not being created, but for the most part are jobs which will move from Hockley, where a number of business properties are to be demolished and moved to Rochford as part of the Hockley Area Action Plan.
Development of the airport...will not start delivering jobs until passengers exceed one million. Statistics collected from other airports will corroborate this; there are already enough people employed directly by the airport to cater for the first million people through the doors.
'...a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings...' Since nine-tenths of the land within the airport belongs to Rochford to what buildings does this part of the document refer? Buildings which stand directly opposite Southend's Council Offices have been neglected, run-down and empty for years. Given the constrains of budget, surely they should look closer to home to invest the taxpayer's money.
'...growth on London Southend Airport...attracts high technology businesses' - if the businesses are going next to the airport, why does this imply that the airport has to grow in order for the businesses to succeed. I object to the misleading way this paragraph has been written.
'...sustainable and high value employment' is a meaningless phrase to the layman. I object to this phrase as misleading 'spin'.
'...Passengers will travel on quiet, fuel efficient lanes...'There is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane! there are planes that are quieter than they were in the past, but it will take a very long time for airlines to ensure that all their aircraft are quieter than those they presently use. It would be too expensive for them to ditch the aircraft, until they have finished their natural life, which could be upto to 30 years. As to fuel efficiency, 'peak oil' may already have been reached so fuel efficient or not, prices will soon begin to rise again and put most flights beyond the reach of the man on the street. Why not reconsider the phrase 'quiet, fuel efficient plane's when they are quiet and fuel efficient, running on solar power?
The penultimate sentence seems to contradict itself:-'...the runway extension is a key factor in...aeroplanes (which) can take off in shorter distances.' If the planes take off in shorter distances, they do not need a longer runway! Or could it be that, because of the proximity of the railway line, the planes need to make a landing further away from the Rochford end of the railway, transferring the nuisance to the Southend end of the runway.
The MRO should be allowed to continue, but surely if passenger numbers are allowed to increase, the time available for landing, testing and take-off will be severely limited due to the number of passenger flights. Will this facility be moved to evenings and nights?'...there will be restrictions on night flights through a noise quota system.' That is good news! Why was the actual number for the quota not quoted here?
The Saxon Business Park could be good news. Common speculation, tying in the Hockley Action Plan with the Southend/Rochford Plan would indicate that many of the jobs will actually be moving from Hockley to the new site, along with some of the units that will be cleared to make way for other development, But I am sure there will be some new jobs created.
'...a new route will have been provided from Nestuda Way...etc'. The words make this sound like simplicity itself. Living here will not be simple for a very long time. The current runway and the proposed entension are over the place where the village of Eastwood once stood. Archaeological surveys will have to be done before work is carried out, local opinioin must be satisfied before work is carried out, explanations to those east of the church as to how they may obtain access to the church and churchyard will have to be given and the necessary funding found for the job. these are just a few of the obstacles in the way of progress with the extension of the runway. And yet here it is dismissed in a few simple words.
It is impossible to equate 2012 with the figure of 1 million passengers given the promises in the previous section. The quiet fuel efficient planes will not be in place entirely,the longer runway will not be in place, the infrastructure (i.e crowded roads, particularly Progress Road, Sadlers Farm will not have been addressed, since there is not enough time in 3 years to address all these things. At present there is not an airline lined up which is to provide a passenger service. They will surely not rely on promises, they have a business to run!
'The preferred option' as selected by joint councils is not the one chosen by the respondents to the first part of this consultation. On the penultimate page of the summary of responses, it is stated that the high-growth scenario was not favoured by the majority. When this was questioned by members of SAEN and other unrelated individuals, the response was that 'this is not a referendum, it is a consultation!' So the statements on many lips - 'Well the council will do what they like!' and 'It's only a paper exercise - it's a foregone conclusion!' may well be correct. Our views have not been taken into consideration so far, and there is no reason to think that we will be considered in this round, either. '...aircraft...fully laden...'must present more of a danger for the residents of the Mendip Estate, to the south-west of the runway. We cannot countenance a Lockerbie situation here in Westcliff. The houses are far too close to the runway now, before an extension is granted. Southend Council has allowed building to take place right up to the outskirts of the airport boundary over the last few years; this includes an enormous Tesco store and the huge building of the Royal bank of Scotland - landing and take-off procedures leave very little margin for error with so many people in the vicinity.
The promise of 6,200 jobs is a good one. It does not depend on the extension of the runway. It is however not clear what is meant by 'classes B1 and B2.'
'...environmental impacts (noise and air quality) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of the increased aircraft movements and traffic in the area.'...'considering controls on airport operation to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents...minimise traffic impacts.' The way in which these measures are to be taken should be better described in this document; they are crucial to the quality of life of residents, old people and children being particularly vulnerable to noise and air pollutiion.
It is interesting to see that there are plans to improve public transport in Southend (or is it in Rochford?-it is not clear). Public transport has been in decline in Southend for some years, and it is apparent that the planning office has no idea how to deal with it all. There are current plans to demolish a multi-storey car park in the centre of Southend and replace it with a library for the university students. Yet alongside that, there seem to be no plans to improve access to the centre of the town by public transport.
It is not clear whether the Brickwork's cottages are to remain as part of an industrial area or whether they are intended for demolition.
Taking agricultural land for business and employment activity might seem a little unwise, Southend has already run out of agricultural land, and it now seems as if Rochford wants to go the same way. Has the term 'Green Belt' become so abused that it no longer means 'land that is green and cannot be built on'?
This is already a green lung and should remain so. Will there be any safeguards to stop this area becoming the next stage of development?
It is not clear whether this is meant as a compulsory purchase option! Were the current businesses asked for their views.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currently well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
The flying Clubs have been the core of the airport activity for a very long time, training pilots and ensuring sustainability - will they be given a new area from which to function.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today!
The Park and Ride facility would be on a good place to commute to Southend by bus, if it were not for the fact that it is right under the flight path. Is it legal to have a bus stop within the Safety Zone.
'...sustainable drainage...'. It is not clear what is meant by this term. There are problems of drainage already in the Southend Road; during wet weather the Horse and Groom public house is frequently overwhelmed by water. Is there a guarantee that the situation will not worsen and that water will be drained off into the correct direction? There must be some sort of ruling governing the safety issues of rain/large areas of tarmac. Have these been fully investigated, and do we have assurances?
This data implies that there will be 1180 jobs directly related to the airport. Research into previous claims for directly-related airport jobs has proved that these predictions are grossly inflated. When 2 million passengers go through, there may be direct jobs for 100 people, but 1000 has to be seen as an optimistic exaggeration.
It is encouraging to see that there are to be new walking/cycling routes incorporated into the JAAP.
The brickwork cottages are now unique and should be preserved as part of the brickfield development in Essex over many hundreds of years.
An impressive entrance will make no difference to the quality of what goes on in the business park.
'...the business park will need to...deliver a visual presence to the A127.' It is not clear what is meant by this statement.
'Expansion is...only acceptable if...subject to environmental constraints...' Expansion plans were vetoed in the Nineteen-sixties because it was not environmentally viable. What can possibly have changed since then?
A baseline of noise levels can be set anywhere and it does not appear to be in the power of the local authority to set this baseline or to object to it after it is implemented. A Noise Evaluation Statement is just that. It does not promise to do anything about it. There are at least 60,000 people living under the flight path and they are the ones who can evaluate the noise levels for you. Heavy aircraft taking off or landing at night have not been a feature whilst the JAAP is in the balance, but as soon as the consultation is over, it is entirely possible that these will resume. Added to the daytime flights interrupting the sleep of night workers and the work of children in ten schools directly under the flight path, the noise levels will become an intolerable burden.
The added CO2 in the atmosphere is not easy to offsett given the limited amount of green space within the borough of Southend, school green areas having been sold off and built upon and former agricultural land now being seen as business parks. So the quality of life for all these people will be sadly reduced. Not to mention the prices of their houses falling, because no-one in their right mind will want to live close to an expanding airport.
There is currently opposition to expansion of airports within the Government and Opposition benches. Is it hoped that all this permission for the Rochford/Southend JAAP will slip under the wire before it becomes law to limit the use of airports.
(see London Southend Airport Introduction (para 3)
Why is there no printed plan yet available for the PSZ if and when the runway is extended? Will this entail further disruption and compulsory purchase?
'The airport operator will be required to...make a contribution towards construction...'what percentage of this will the operator be expected to pay. It does not seem fair that the public should be expected to pay anything towards these changes; why not ask the operator to pay for the lot. Southend taxpayers can not expect to get anything out of the proposals except noise, disruption and poor air quality. Is it fair to ask them to pay anything towards the cost of local taxes?
The hours of predicted air travel are far too wide. Children whose sleep patterns are likely to be affected by flights will be in bed by 8pm and that is when the flights should stop. We should not be accepting flights from London City Airport either. It is simply another way of raising income for the operator and does not benefit the town.
The closure of Eastwoodbury Lane and the provision of a new road will mean that all the traffic that currently uses the Lane as a back way in to Southend will have to travel along the A127 or Nestuda Way. It will add about a mile to the journey into Southend, so most people will not turn in to the new road but will attempt to continue their journey along the A127, putting intolerable strain on the junction at the Bell and Rochford Road junction. There will be more traffic movements also, connected with the new jobs planned for the Saxon Business Park. The current infrastructure is bulging with overuse and really cannot take any more. the proposed Park and Ride can take only a little of the traffic away. And if it is intended for long term use for the airport, it will be of no use to the daily commuter.
What time span is this to take? And surely this is the same piece of road - why is it taking two separate policies.
It is not clear why a new junction will be required at Aviation Way and Eastwoodbury Lane - there is already an adequate roundabout there.
It is noted that improvements in public transport are needed within the JAAP. They are needed throughout Southend in many areas not covered by The JAAP also.
I note with dismay that a Green Belt is not what it was designed to. It should not provide flexibility...to accomodate growth. It should provide a barrier between urban and rural areas that is sacrosanct and inviolable.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currenty well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today.
'The success will be limited if, etc.' For whom?

Comments and Objections
The regeneration of London Southend Airport cannot be achieved by building a business park. Nor does a business park depend upon the extension of the runway.
Set out specific standards which will be applied to the area. Standards of what, exactly? - behaviour? - building control? - road width? - signage?
The JAAP takes into account the impact of the proposals on other parts of Southend Borough Council areas, I don't think it does, there are at least 60,000 people and pupils in 10 schools likely to be adversely affected by increasing the flight capacity of the airport. Some of the aircraft may well be quieter than others, but there is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane. The higher a plane goes on take-off, by using a longer runway and a steeper ascent, the wider the 'noise footprint' will be. Surely that is a matter of basic physics. To attain the greater speed on the runway, the number of revs will increase, creating greater ground noise than at present. Also, as one aircraft is taking off, another will be preparing for take-off at peak times, a constant noise for all the houses around the take-off area.'Impact on...the existing built environment...' A possible 6 houses demolished for the runway to Eastwoodbury Lane and the brickfield cottages on Cherry Orchard Lane demolished for the business park. '...including listed buildings.' The church of St Laurence is a Grade One listed building, accepted by the CAA as a hazard. It is in constant use. The vibration caused by aircraft movements could surely endanger this beautful old church. The (admittedly remote) chance that a plane could strike the church and 130 worshippers must also be considered.
The 'Issues and Options' report was quietly introduced in the summer of 2008. It was not trumpeted loudly, but hidden in a website backwater for comments from those that could find it.
'The feedback...has been carefully considered and used'. The analysis was published in March 2009. When SAEN queried the statement on the penultimate page of the document, 'most respondents did not favour the high-growth option, they were told that 'this is not a referendum; it is a consultation'. So it would seem that views were asked for and then ignored. No wonder people say that the whole thing is a foregone conclusion!
'The economic benefits of the expansion in air travel' should be re-examined in the light of falling figures relating to air travel. The only airline operating regularly from Southend Airport has already gone into liquidation last winter - a victim of the credit crunch, not a victim of a runway that was too short.
The growing pressure on airports in the South-East is a pressure generated by the huge success of Stansted airport as a passenger terminal. Stansted is one hour away from Southend on the X30 bus; a comfortable journey with room for your luggage also, and a frequent service from the town.
Another pressure will be that the London Southend Airport has to consider that a drop-off point is now not to be too near a terminal building and other forms of security need to be addressed. There may be a 6 foot fence on the southern boundary, but a footpath that actually crosses the disused short runway to the north would have to be considered a security threat.
'Significant job opportunities' is a statement which must be challenged. There will not be any significant job opportunities connected to the airport until the airport starts to cater for millions of passengers. The jobs referred to in the booklet will almost exclusively provided by units in the Saxon Business Park. 'The Region's competitve strength and attractiveness as a business location and tourism destination.' Before Southend sees itself as a business location or a tourism destination, it needs to take a long hard look at what it does want to be. For some decades now. Southend Borough Council has been drying to ignore the fact that it is a seaside town. It is not a centre of things, it is on the coast. It is already well served by two rail lines for those who wish to come to the beach. It is only safe to swim when the tide is coming in (which it does twice a day), not when it is going out. When the tide is out, what should the visitor do? Visit the Pier? Why? There hasn't been enough cash in the kitty for years to develop the pier into a going concern, mostly due to an overspend on expensive consultants and lack of competent decision making. Visit the penny arcades, the pubs the shopping centre, visit Leigh and buy cockles go to the fun fair? Yes, but the airport is 3 miles away from all that, so after your flight, you will need a bus, (there are still a few left still running) or a taxi to the seaside. On the way, you may pass the remains of the Ecko site, the town's once-huge industry, or you pay pass the muli-storey buildings in Victoria Avenue, now derelict and unused, no longer the centres of commerce that they once were.
So, before Southend Borough Council addresses the question of the airport, which is 90% in Rochford anyway, perhaps they should expend a little effort, time and money considering the town's identity - you cant ignore the fact that it is a seaside town; commerce has failed hugely and manufacture is not what it once was, probably due to European influence and computer networking.
How does the local policy framework foresee Southend airport acting as a key driver for economic development? There is not enough detail given in the document.
With expansion of the airport'... issues of congestion and accessibility in and around the JAAP area...need to be addressed. And it will all have to be done at the same time. Public accounts of any difficulties experienced whilst getting to the airport are more than likely to be negative. People accept the good inherent in things but complain loudly when they are confronted by obstacles!
'Local policies support the growth of the airport' but local opinion, whilst largely embracing the airport as it is at present, is not generally in favour of the extension. The MRO sector should be safeguarded. However as the number of passengers increases towards 2 million, as proposed, the opportunity to test planes on the runway will necessarily decrease, pushing these older, noisier planes into times when passenger movements are less, that is to say, evenings and night times.
I object to the wording in this paragraph because it implies that London Southend Airport will be providing significant employment opportunities, when the facts are that the employment opportunities will arise when the Saxon Business Park is completed. Even then, there are several respondents to SAEN who understand that the jobs are not being created, but for the most part are jobs which will move from Hockley, where a number of business properties are to be demolished and moved to Rochford as part of the Hockley Area Action Plan.
Development of the airport...will not start delivering jobs until passengers exceed one million. Statistics collected from other airports will corroborate this; there are already enough people employed directly by the airport to cater for the first million people through the doors.
'...a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings...' Since nine-tenths of the land within the airport belongs to Rochford to what buildings does this part of the document refer? Buildings which stand directly opposite Southend's Council Offices have been neglected, run-down and empty for years. Given the constrains of budget, surely they should look closer to home to invest the taxpayer's money.
'...growth on London Southend Airport...attracts high technology businesses' - if the businesses are going next to the airport, why does this imply that the airport has to grow in order for the businesses to succeed. I object to the misleading way this paragraph has been written.
'...sustainable and high value employment' is a meaningless phrase to the layman. I object to this phrase as misleading 'spin'.
'...Passengers will travel on quiet, fuel efficient lanes...'There is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane! there are planes that are quieter than they were in the past, but it will take a very long time for airlines to ensure that all their aircraft are quieter than those they presently use. It would be too expensive for them to ditch the aircraft, until they have finished their natural life, which could be upto to 30 years. As to fuel efficiency, 'peak oil' may already have been reached so fuel efficient or not, prices will soon begin to rise again and put most flights beyond the reach of the man on the street. Why not reconsider the phrase 'quiet, fuel efficient plane's when they are quiet and fuel efficient, running on solar power?
The penultimate sentence seems to contradict itself:-'...the runway extension is a key factor in...aeroplanes (which) can take off in shorter distances.' If the planes take off in shorter distances, they do not need a longer runway! Or could it be that, because of the proximity of the railway line, the planes need to make a landing further away from the Rochford end of the railway, transferring the nuisance to the Southend end of the runway.
The MRO should be allowed to continue, but surely if passenger numbers are allowed to increase, the time available for landing, testing and take-off will be severely limited due to the number of passenger flights. Will this facility be moved to evenings and nights?'...there will be restrictions on night flights through a noise quota system.' That is good news! Why was the actual number for the quota not quoted here?
The Saxon Business Park could be good news. Common speculation, tying in the Hockley Action Plan with the Southend/Rochford Plan would indicate that many of the jobs will actually be moving from Hockley to the new site, along with some of the units that will be cleared to make way for other development, But I am sure there will be some new jobs created.
'...a new route will have been provided from Nestuda Way...etc'. The words make this sound like simplicity itself. Living here will not be simple for a very long time. The current runway and the proposed entension are over the place where the village of Eastwood once stood. Archaeological surveys will have to be done before work is carried out, local opinioin must be satisfied before work is carried out, explanations to those east of the church as to how they may obtain access to the church and churchyard will have to be given and the necessary funding found for the job. these are just a few of the obstacles in the way of progress with the extension of the runway. And yet here it is dismissed in a few simple words.
It is impossible to equate 2012 with the figure of 1 million passengers given the promises in the previous section. The quiet fuel efficient planes will not be in place entirely,the longer runway will not be in place, the infrastructure (i.e crowded roads, particularly Progress Road, Sadlers Farm will not have been addressed, since there is not enough time in 3 years to address all these things. At present there is not an airline lined up which is to provide a passenger service. They will surely not rely on promises, they have a business to run!
'The preferred option' as selected by joint councils is not the one chosen by the respondents to the first part of this consultation. On the penultimate page of the summary of responses, it is stated that the high-growth scenario was not favoured by the majority. When this was questioned by members of SAEN and other unrelated individuals, the response was that 'this is not a referendum, it is a consultation!' So the statements on many lips - 'Well the council will do what they like!' and 'It's only a paper exercise - it's a foregone conclusion!' may well be correct. Our views have not been taken into consideration so far, and there is no reason to think that we will be considered in this round, either. '...aircraft...fully laden...'must present more of a danger for the residents of the Mendip Estate, to the south-west of the runway. We cannot countenance a Lockerbie situation here in Westcliff. The houses are far too close to the runway now, before an extension is granted. Southend Council has allowed building to take place right up to the outskirts of the airport boundary over the last few years; this includes an enormous Tesco store and the huge building of the Royal bank of Scotland - landing and take-off procedures leave very little margin for error with so many people in the vicinity.
The promise of 6,200 jobs is a good one. It does not depend on the extension of the runway. It is however not clear what is meant by 'classes B1 and B2.'
'...environmental impacts (noise and air quality) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of the increased aircraft movements and traffic in the area.'...'considering controls on airport operation to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents...minimise traffic impacts.' The way in which these measures are to be taken should be better described in this document; they are crucial to the quality of life of residents, old people and children being particularly vulnerable to noise and air pollutiion.
It is interesting to see that there are plans to improve public transport in Southend (or is it in Rochford?-it is not clear). Public transport has been in decline in Southend for some years, and it is apparent that the planning office has no idea how to deal with it all. There are current plans to demolish a multi-storey car park in the centre of Southend and replace it with a library for the university students. Yet alongside that, there seem to be no plans to improve access to the centre of the town by public transport.
It is not clear whether the Brickwork's cottages are to remain as part of an industrial area or whether they are intended for demolition.
Taking agricultural land for business and employment activity might seem a little unwise, Southend has already run out of agricultural land, and it now seems as if Rochford wants to go the same way. Has the term 'Green Belt' become so abused that it no longer means 'land that is green and cannot be built on'?
This is already a green lung and should remain so. Will there be any safeguards to stop this area becoming the next stage of development?
It is not clear whether this is meant as a compulsory purchase option! Were the current businesses asked for their views.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currently well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
The flying Clubs have been the core of the airport activity for a very long time, training pilots and ensuring sustainability - will they be given a new area from which to function.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today!
The Park and Ride facility would be on a good place to commute to Southend by bus, if it were not for the fact that it is right under the flight path. Is it legal to have a bus stop within the Safety Zone.
'...sustainable drainage...'. It is not clear what is meant by this term. There are problems of drainage already in the Southend Road; during wet weather the Horse and Groom public house is frequently overwhelmed by water. Is there a guarantee that the situation will not worsen and that water will be drained off into the correct direction? There must be some sort of ruling governing the safety issues of rain/large areas of tarmac. Have these been fully investigated, and do we have assurances?
This data implies that there will be 1180 jobs directly related to the airport. Research into previous claims for directly-related airport jobs has proved that these predictions are grossly inflated. When 2 million passengers go through, there may be direct jobs for 100 people, but 1000 has to be seen as an optimistic exaggeration.
It is encouraging to see that there are to be new walking/cycling routes incorporated into the JAAP.
The brickwork cottages are now unique and should be preserved as part of the brickfield development in Essex over many hundreds of years.
An impressive entrance will make no difference to the quality of what goes on in the business park.
'...the business park will need to...deliver a visual presence to the A127.' It is not clear what is meant by this statement.
'Expansion is...only acceptable if...subject to environmental constraints...' Expansion plans were vetoed in the Nineteen-sixties because it was not environmentally viable. What can possibly have changed since then?
A baseline of noise levels can be set anywhere and it does not appear to be in the power of the local authority to set this baseline or to object to it after it is implemented. A Noise Evaluation Statement is just that. It does not promise to do anything about it. There are at least 60,000 people living under the flight path and they are the ones who can evaluate the noise levels for you. Heavy aircraft taking off or landing at night have not been a feature whilst the JAAP is in the balance, but as soon as the consultation is over, it is entirely possible that these will resume. Added to the daytime flights interrupting the sleep of night workers and the work of children in ten schools directly under the flight path, the noise levels will become an intolerable burden.
The added CO2 in the atmosphere is not easy to offsett given the limited amount of green space within the borough of Southend, school green areas having been sold off and built upon and former agricultural land now being seen as business parks. So the quality of life for all these people will be sadly reduced. Not to mention the prices of their houses falling, because no-one in their right mind will want to live close to an expanding airport.
There is currently opposition to expansion of airports within the Government and Opposition benches. Is it hoped that all this permission for the Rochford/Southend JAAP will slip under the wire before it becomes law to limit the use of airports.
(see London Southend Airport Introduction (para 3)
Why is there no printed plan yet available for the PSZ if and when the runway is extended? Will this entail further disruption and compulsory purchase?
'The airport operator will be required to...make a contribution towards construction...'what percentage of this will the operator be expected to pay. It does not seem fair that the public should be expected to pay anything towards these changes; why not ask the operator to pay for the lot. Southend taxpayers can not expect to get anything out of the proposals except noise, disruption and poor air quality. Is it fair to ask them to pay anything towards the cost of local taxes?
The hours of predicted air travel are far too wide. Children whose sleep patterns are likely to be affected by flights will be in bed by 8pm and that is when the flights should stop. We should not be accepting flights from London City Airport either. It is simply another way of raising income for the operator and does not benefit the town.
The closure of Eastwoodbury Lane and the provision of a new road will mean that all the traffic that currently uses the Lane as a back way in to Southend will have to travel along the A127 or Nestuda Way. It will add about a mile to the journey into Southend, so most people will not turn in to the new road but will attempt to continue their journey along the A127, putting intolerable strain on the junction at the Bell and Rochford Road junction. There will be more traffic movements also, connected with the new jobs planned for the Saxon Business Park. The current infrastructure is bulging with overuse and really cannot take any more. the proposed Park and Ride can take only a little of the traffic away. And if it is intended for long term use for the airport, it will be of no use to the daily commuter.
What time span is this to take? And surely this is the same piece of road - why is it taking two separate policies.
It is not clear why a new junction will be required at Aviation Way and Eastwoodbury Lane - there is already an adequate roundabout there.
It is noted that improvements in public transport are needed within the JAAP. They are needed throughout Southend in many areas not covered by The JAAP also.
I note with dismay that a Green Belt is not what it was designed to. It should not provide flexibility...to accomodate growth. It should provide a barrier between urban and rural areas that is sacrosanct and inviolable.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currenty well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today.
'The success will be limited if, etc.' For whom?