Issue 1

As an older resident who lives in Eastwood near to the end of the runway I look forward to the airport being fully utilised again. Reading through the proposals it would appear most options have been considered. I feel the runway should be extended as part of the overal plan, so as to give the airport more options in the future. Moving the church is a comparitivly easy thing to do and would help safeguard its future by providing proper foundations for it to last many more years. Well done to all those who have put in so much effort.

Is is absolutely vital that the runway is extended if the airport is to attract more business.

We do not need an airport here which will increase noise pollution, traffic congestion and have a negative impact on Rochford residents' lives.

i say leave the airport as it is. other wise eddy stobart &co will be filling the area with containers &lorries. the roads will not take the extra traffic.as for extra air craft use ie holiday flights & night cargo flights.the polution &noise are not wanted.

I would like to comment about the proposed changes. I have lived under the flight path for several years and brought my house knowing that the occasional light aircraft will be flying overhead. I have not had an issue with the airport till now. It seems to me that the goal posts are being moved and I may have to put up with the noise of larger planes day and night. I just want to voice my objection to this scheme. I don't mind for one minute a couple of Cessna's overhead but to use the airport for fright night and day makes me feel concerned for the peace and quite I currently enjoy.

Due to noise pollution and yet more encroachment on the country side any of the proposed expansions should not go ahead. Any increase will effect the population of Rochford more than the residants of the surrounding Boroughs where it seems the opinion for expansion is more positive.I feel that we are at the maximum level now for Aircraft noise and pollution where especially during the summer months it is virtually impossible to relax in your own garden after working hard all week.Also there is the issue of property which would most likley lose some of its value in respect to any expansion, will the local council or the Aiport Authority see fit to make up for any loss? This planned expenditure under present day circumstances by the Goverment and local council is not warranted at all and especially as we have two major Airports situated in the south east already. This project shold not be allowed to go ahead.

The future success of the airport is vital not only for local employment but to make the area a European destination & boost tourism. It adds a further access point to London via rail & road & will stop local people travelling to London
to access a selection of European destinations

Apart from the obvious increased air traffic, which can be environmentally managed, the benefits to the local communities are so overwhelming that they should not be overlooked, especially in these troubled economic times.

I cannot see where there is any evidence of consultation of the people by referendum or other means to this development.
This project will have a major effect on so many peoples environment, that consultation is essential.

Given the current economic climate why is this proposed expansion still going ahead? Several budget travel firms have gone bust along with the cheap charter flights that I assume would make up the majority of flights to operate out of Southend airport, so who exactly will fly into Southend over Luton and Stanstead, two aiports that service this region more than adequatly?

Get real, after the olympics Southend airport will be lucky to fly 100,000 ppa. The rest of the time will be spent flying freight - why do you think Eddie Stobbart bought it. Do you want more lorries, more night flights, more pollution, more traffic jams? I DO NOT. And yes you are right - NOT IN MY BACK YARD

We generally support the Masterplan with the extension of the runway. There must however be constraints on the increased noise levels with an accurately measured prediction of noise levels in terms that the public can understand. This measure must also be included in the consultation. This Masterplan should drastically improve economic and employment opportunities for the area.

Rochford was high on the list as one of the best places to live, low pollution, healthy environment and general quality of life. What now for the future of local residents. Increased air pollution, increased traffic pollution, and worst of all increased noise pollution from aircraft. It seems as though the residents of Rochford do not matter any more. Particularly for those who live under the flight path whose opinions are never asked for.

The proposals refer to quieter aircraft, but fail to provide details of how noise levels are measured or how they compare, nor what effect these levels will have on the quality of life of people living in the area.

Furthermore, any increase in flight activity will be an increase in noise, especially as night cargo flights are being proposed.

The increase in passenger throughput will put strain on transport routes. A new station will provide easier access to the railway, but will not provide increased capacity. New access to the A127 does not resolve the congestion on that trunk road, a route which is entirely urban while in the borough. No mention has been made of the noise impact of increased road traffic, nor of increased rail traffic if that is planned.

Providing a route to the 2012 Olympics is clearly considered in the proposals. What is less clear is whether there is otherwise a market for increased passenger throughput.

I object to local taxpayers becoming burdened with costs for improving local infrastructure & services that will be required for any planned expansion of Southend Airport. Given the current uncertain economic climate and the proximity of Rochford/Southend to an already developed Stansted Airport, there is a serious risk of a negative impact on any private investment undertaking a lengthy expansion ptrogramme.

Support the 2005 Airport Master-plan to develop Southend as a passenger terminal using current runway length.
Do not accept the councils preferred option of runway extension to accept larger passenger and more importantly larger cargo planes which can operate with much less regulation thereby having a significant and adverse noise and environmental impact. Southend should develop as a provincial airport, using smaller planes to serve UK/Northern Europe.This will control freight traffic, which does not benefit the local population, will minimise the environmental impact and will offer gradual and sustainable growth which is in keeping with the forecast European economic outlook.

I broadly support the development of Southend London Airport. It is time we had a local airport that is an asset to this area and provides a much needed boost to employment. It is the responsibility of the council to ensure that environmental concerns are carefully balanced against the disadvantages of increased development. The alternative is to see the airport disappear and be swamped by housing estates. With the looming Olympic Games this is a unique opportunity to shape the future development of this area and add to the local infrastructure in a positive way.

I object to the fact that airport expansion is being considered in the absence of an adequate road infrastructure leading to and from the airport. The area is already overcrowded and the roads are congested from every direction. There is very little scope for new or improved roads without demolishing a lot of buildings or desecrating green areas. The A127 is at breaking point. I believe that Southend airport is in the wrong location for anything other than low growth.

support

I dont not think that the runway should be unnessecarilly extended just to speed up the process of the airport gaining business. I think that if there is an adequate action plan that would keep the runway at its exsisting length then it should be considered more beneficial. As it would have better long term benefits for those who are affected by it.

We totally object to any further development of the airport in terms of increased flights both passenger and freight. As residents of the area we consider the development to be detrimental - our properties will be de-valued by the noise and pollution. Our roads A127/A13 are already gridlocked more often than not, they will never cope with an increase in traffic meaning further problems for residents. There may be some restrictions on the times of passenger flights but this doesn't stop freight flights through the night! WE DO NOT WANT IT!

I fully support the airport development to 2 mppa.
I fully support the infrastructure development.
I agree that the airport with careful departure
and arrival routes can operate within reasonable noise level limits.
A long time coming!

Rochford is a rural area the development would change this and make it a suburb of Southend. Any demand could be met without extending the runway. The railway is already there so why aren't airlines operating now. A 5 minute taxi ride wouldn't deter those who wanted to use the airport. If the catchment area includes London then City Airport has been overlooked. There are existing industrial units and empty office space in Southend. 100 take offs and landings is an unacceptably high volume in a residential area with the associated pollution.

I am a married retired aircraft engineer born in Southend, have lived in Rochford for 43 years and worked at the airport in the sixties and seventies. My main objections are:

NOISE

The impact on the local residents including myself and my wife will be intolerable. The statement that the aircraft using the airport will be quieter is not valid due to the fact this will only be relevant if the runway is long enough ie similar to Stansted, Luton and Gatwick where they are able to use noise abatement procedures. The extension proposed in the airport plan will come nowhere near this, which means to achieve the correct climb out they will have to use full power and this WILL be heard by thousands of residents. This information was obtained from my son and a very close friend of mine who are both airline pilots and have a good operating knowledge of this airport and the aircraft which could be using it.

ROAD TRAFFIC

The impact on local traffic will be chaotic, particularly with regard to the proposed closure of Eastwoodbury Lane, as this takes most of the overload from the A127, I know this a I use it almost on a daily basis. To close it would put all the west bound and east bound commuter traffic back on to the A127 which, if you live in the area you will know is very congested both morning and afternoons from Southend to Rayleigh and beyond and suffers serious accidents almost on a daily basis.

The roundabout at the airport itself is frequently blocked by cars queuing to get into the business park, I have been stuck there many times.

In addition, all the other Airports serving London are adjacent to or very close to motorways, we just have the A127 which as previously stated is grossly inadequate even with todays traffic.

NEW RAILWAY STATION

I think the envisaged use of the station is overstated, I have travelled to many places in the world by air for business and pleasure and from all the airports serving London and I have never once used the train as it is too inconvenient, unreliable and expensive.

ENVIRONMENT

Finally having lived in Rochford for a very long time I have seen it change from a busy and pleasant market town to an overcrowded urban sprawl.

Take the new square!!! Shops still empty, often covered with litter, and frequented by youths, and at times looking deserted, I call that bad planning. I think the Council Planners would do well to look at our local infrastructure and amenities instead of trying to over populate the area with more business parks and dual carriageways going nowhere.

I will close by quoting an article in the evening echo by Richard Evans head of environmental services who says:

"Clean air is important for the health of our residents, and it is important that we know our businesses are staying below legal limits for emissions."

"I am also pleased to announce we are on target to meet this 100 per cent figure again this year, reinforcing our status as one of the most attractive districts in Essex in which to live."

I suggest the proposals you are putting forward are totally at odds with this statement and will have the opposite effect.

The current level of operations are just tolerable as they are, and the expansion of the airport and the surrounding area is not necessary or appropriate for the future well being of this District.

The small runway extension is vital and will allow the new generation of quieter airliners to operate from Southend.

I fully support the runway extension as planned, not least as it will improve aircraft safety considerably through enhancements to the RESAs at each end of the runway.
The RESA at the north-east end can be significantly increased in length from its current permitted minimum of 90 metres, in effect 'moving' the start of the runway further from the railway line. The RESA at the south-west end will still be the full 240 metres recommended, but without the perimeter/security fence which current separates the runway from the RESA.
I hope this safety enhancement will be clearly stated in the Submission Document.

I totally support the extension of the runway to facilitate passenger services to Europe using jet aircraft. I really look forward to not having to battle round the M25 to fly, when there is a perfectly good airport on my doorstep that only needs a little improvement.

I object to the runway extension at this time and would prefer to see a scheduled implementation with key milestones to assess the viability of the project.My specific objections are:
i)Employment-see Employment Allocation.
ii)Insufficient data to make an assessment-see London Southend Airport Introduction.
iii)Transport-see Transport Introduction
iv)The Government wishes to increase passenger traffic by 10 million by 2015 at Stanstead.Between 2007 and 2008 passenger traffic fell by 13%.These facts must have implications for the Southend expansion plan.
v)Finance-see Aviation Way Industrial Estate.

STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL EXPANSION. Do minimum or preferably no expansion.The increase in aircraft noise for us residents will become intolerable, emissions will increase. The road system cannot cope with current traffic levels. If 2m passenger movements are reached this will require about 4000 extra car journeys per day!!! Imagine the road upgrading work for the next few years that would be required. This area has a high percentage of elderly people who hardly fly. Who will the expansion benefit, people flying from outside the region and the business people and major shareholders who will make millions of pounds.

The expansion of the Airport is vital to the growth and economy of the area. Born in Rochford and lived in Southend Borough for nearly 60 years noise/nuisance have never been a problem. Years of indecision have lost opportunities for the town. Stop further delays and get on with it.