Issue 1

I am opposed to the extension of the runway on environmental grounds and do not wish to see the airport accepting larger aeroplanes

the proposed runway extension will inevitably lead to increased pollution and longer periods of noise for all those living under the flight path and these issues have not been adequately addressed in the preferred options report

As a Leigh on Sea resident I am concerned about both noise levels and pollution. Although the expansion will no doubt increase employment opportunities in the area, I don't doubt that in due course there will also be a demand for increased NHS facilities to cope with the negative medical impact that the increased emissions will have on our children and their children. I do not see these new jobs as a benefit! We are letting our children down!

Southend Airport must be given permission to expand, so it can operate at full potential.

BRING IT ON

Highlighting the fact that the planes that would be accommodated by the longer runway as being quieter and more efficient is a mute point bearing in mind that the planes that these are being compared against do not currently fly into Southend Airport. How can this lessen the impact on the local environment more than if they were not actually flying.
What will be the frequency of these flights during the day and night?
What types of planes are going to be flying into Southend?
Are the flight paths available to the public including plane heights on approach?

Object on the grounds of noise/air pollution, property devaluation as we live under flightpath, quality of life destroyed due to incessant noise of aircraft flying overhead in and out of airport day and night over our rooftops. Increased road traffic and pollution.

There is no proven evidence of extra emoloyement, Merely providing premises will not automatically generate jobs.
This area is already suffering congested roads. This development will only increase the comgestion.
It is unreasonable to expect residents to suffer an increased number of flights and to experience the increased nopise and pollution they will generate.

We fundamentally object to the expansion of the airport as lengthening the runway removes any practical constraint on limiting the number and timing of aircraft movements through the day and night.

With the current concern over global climate and the impact air travel has on this, it seems inconceivable that we are contemplating an expansion of the airport.

At current growth rates air travel will be one of the major factors in climate change in the near future. It is predicted to exceed Britain's entire allocation of greenhouse gasses before 2050 (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research).

Strong objection. As we can see from Southampton Airport once this runway extension is built the genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. Southampton's runway is 76m shorter than that proposed for Southend but it's noise footprint has grown to twice the size of Southends, the 55db level extends 5.57Km from the end of the runway (compared to 2.48Km for Southend's present footprint), this is despite continuos protests and complaints about noise and property blight. Southampton presently handles 2 million passengers per year (as proposed for Southend, ) but uses both end of it's runway. Further despite very strong objections from the local population and councils, Southampton intend to increase it's passengers to 6 million per year. This they can do with just CAA approval, the local councils and people will have no say in the matter as no planning permission is required. I have seen no restrictions proposed to stop this happening at Southend if the runway extension is granted. 'The airport operator will be required to publish an annual Noise Evaluation Statement to be set against the requirements of the agreed baseline position.' certainly will not. You will need legally binding, legally enforceable, written in stone, with no loop holes restrictions that have high penalties, because when it effects their profit margin it will be legally tested whatever is said at the moment, and only what is legally enforceable will count, as the people of Southampton have found out

I feel this is the only economically viable solution for the future of Southend
Airport. Extending the runway will make the airport attractive to aircraft
operators who can truly maximise the benefit of Southend's strategic
location. Coupled with a fast rail link into Stratford it would become the
airport of choice for businessmen getting to Docklands, wishing to avoid
the overpriced and congested London City airport. It would also be able to
attract short-haul local holidaymakers wishing to avoid the trauma of
travelling to Stansted, Gatwick or, even worse, Heathrow and the extensive
costs involved in parking at those airports. There are terrific
opportunities for increased local employment and with the improving
technology of modern aircraft the noise and environmental pollution would
be small. Southend Airport has always suffered form a lack of suitable
investment leaving it such a poor shadow of its former self. Let's take the
opportunity now to maximise on the terrific asset we have.

More hangarage is essential for business aircraft. Should ensure that small aircraft, which are the life blood, are not priced out.

I fully support the planned expansion of the airport and the runway extension.

With more modern and efficient aircraft in operation, it would be great if members of the general public can use the airport to its full potential once again!

In order to ensure that the enviromental and noise improvements are achieved with the construction of alonger runway. Will all planes that do not require the extended runway and hence take full advantage of it, be prevented from using the airport? Or is this just being used as false justification for the extension.

It seems to me that this plan is flawed in that there is no contingency should no airline be prepared to invest in the new quieter aircraft ofering a reduced payload from a provinccial airport. There does not as yet seem to be an agreement or even agreement in principle with any airline.
Further there does not seem to be any fixed contract with Stobbards to only fly 'high value, low volume freight'.
Once the runway is extended and no operator is found Stobbard will have to fly any freight at any time to get a return on investment.

the net result is that local residents will live in a less pleasant environment.

I have read accounts that increasing runway length to 1799m is not enough to fly a fully laden airbus 319 and that airbus 318, which carries 117 passengers only needs a runway of 1355m. This is within the 100-150 target passenger load that you mention. I am against the lengthening of the runway and feel that more passengers can be taken to more destinations without this increase in runway length.

I fully support the airport developments, its about time we have finally realised what great potential it has. I can't understand how anyone could doubt that it will be a success for the area. The maths are simple, if we have more passengers and aircraft we will have more jobs.

I strongly object to the runway extension and associated developments. They will blight the lives of many residents in the area due to the increase in noise, pollution and traffic to provide very limited benefits.

The fundamental objective of expanding Southend Airport is ill-founded for a number of key reasons 1. it will significantly affect the life quality of thousands of local people in a densely residential area. 2. it will cause substantial air and noise pollution. 3. it will cause increased congestion. 4. it will exacerbate global warming through higher CO2 emissions. 5.it will negatively impact local wildlife and recreation opportunities. 6. jobs created will in large part be for commuters into the area, not locals. 7. the perceived blighting of the towns will reduce future inward investment.

This is a brave proposal which will help to boost the local economy and make better use of an existing under utilised asset

I would like to ask what is in it for Rochford people? After all, it is our council that has the lead in the planning applications, not Southend Council.

The fields between the rail track and Southend Road, after the bridge, are often touted as being the green belt, a wedge to act as a buffer to
restrict the effects of the airport noise/pollution on the local residents.

This is the Green Belt that will not be allowed to have the car parks on them, the Green Belt that cannot be touched and is safe from
development.

This would be the fields where they have already started to chop down the trees and have diggers digging up the grass and reducing the land that
the horses can use.

If anyone has been using the road to the A127 that the freight trucks will use, you may have noticed that it is now double yellow lined.

This is Rochford Road, from the Bell/A127 towards the airport, the road that has always had local residents' cars and vans parked there.

It would seem that for years the buses managed to get up and down satisfactorily. The big blue earth moving trucks of the Rochford firm JFT (?) manage satisfactorily, the car transporters, with trailers going to the scrap yards managed satisfactorily.

Does, therefore, the professional transport firm of Eddie Stobart Transport envisage
a large increase in Heavy Goods traffic?

I think these are just small steps that get sneaked in as the councils
already have decided that they will get their way.

The Essex Chambers of Commerce strongly supports the expansion of the airport, which includes the extension of the runway, as this is considered vital for the future prosperity and economic regeneration of Rochford and Southend.

As Southend is a cul-de-sac, it is inconceivable that it can become a "hub".There are appalling road connections that are frequently gridlocked and are at peak capacity now.The building of a park and ride scheme is ludicrous as what it would really need would be a new 3 lane motorway to cope with the amount of holiday and freight traffic planned

I do not want to have additional planes flying over our area as I am informed that 40% of flights may take off in the direction of the Thames but will turn back to fly north over Hawkwell and Hockley. We are going to have a big increase in noise and pollution, the small private planes are noisy enough as it is.

I do not want to have additional planes flying over our area as I am informed that 40% of flights may take off in the direction of the Thames but will turn back to fly north over Hawkwell and Hockley. We are going to have a big increase in noise and pollution, the small private planes are noisy enough as it is.

We strongly object to any expansion of Southend airport on the grounds of increased noise and pollution. Living in Leigh we will be directly affected. My grandson who has chronic asthma goes to school at Blenheim infants and his house is also in the direct flight path. We would never choose to live within the environs of an expanding airport and have every right to expect a decent nights sleep uninterrupted by night flights, and resulting engine noise from aircraft being tested. This is a hugely unpopular idea so please take note of those that elected you.

The RSPB objects to Issue 1. Our objection is based on the grounds that the expansion of Southend airport would, via increases in air transport movements, significantly increase emissions of greenhouse gases. Such greenhouse gases serve to exacerbate climate change, which threatens biodiversity nationally and internationally.

Addressing the seriousness of climate change, national planning policy (Climate Change and Planning, supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1) advocates that Local Development Framework documents address climate change, along with ways to mitigate and reduce carbon emissions. The RSPB is therefore surprised and disappointed that the Joint Area Action Plan does not address the issue of climate change (and how expansion at Southend airport will exacerbate it), nor identify ways to reduce or mitigate the effects of increased greenhouse gas emissions from the airport expansion. We strongly recommend that a policy be included exploring the effects of the airport development on climate change.

Our policy on airports has been formulated after long and deliberate thought and has been informed by independent research we have commissioned to help us understand the way the aviation business operates today and is likely to operate in future. We are in no doubt that set against the current level of airport provision in the South East of England, the economic and social value of expansion at Southend Airport is far outweighed by its economic, social and environmental costs.

RSPB policy on climate change and aviation
Climate change is now recognised as the single greatest long-term threat to humanity and the world's biodiversity. In order to address this threat, it is essential to dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The UK recently passed the first comprehensive climate change legislation in the world, requiring all greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 80% by 2050. To achieve this target, emissions need to be cut across all sectors of the economy. However, emissions from aviation are rising rapidly - doubling between 1990 and 2000. Indeed, in its Aviation White Paper, the Department for Transport predicted that by 2030, passenger numbers will treble compared with 2003 levels, while the Committee on Climate Change estimate that with unconstrained growth, aviation emissions would account for 15-20% of a global greenhouse gas budget by 2050, and over 30% of the UK's share of this budget.

The Climate Change Committee has advised the Government that aviation emissions should be taken into account in the UK's strategy for meeting its long-term climate change goal. It is clear from the Committee's and others' analyses that it will be almost impossible to achieve this goal if aviation emissions are not constrained. The Climate Change Committee states quite clearly in its advice on this issue that demand management, rather than a reliance on future technological development, is the only credible means of ensuring that aviation emissions do not rise to unsustainable levels for the climate.

However, the Government's failure to adopt any significant measures to manage demand and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from the aviation sector threatens to undermine its whole approach to mitigating climate change. The 2003 Aviation White Paper, for example, gives the green light to projects that meet unconstrained demand estimates to 2030 and the 2006 review did little to alter this approach.

The RSPB has serious concerns about the current forecasts for future growth in air travel. We will therefore oppose the expansion of air travel until the Government can demonstrate how this can be achieved whilst still meeting UK targets for emissions reductions across the whole economy.

I do not feel that southend is an appropriate location for such development. The local infrastructure of both the town and south east Essex will struggle to cope with the inevitable expansion of traffic.

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy the learning and teaching environment which West Leigh Junior School has successfully created over the past 50 years. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for our students, therefore affecting their learning potential. The pollution will adversely affect the quality of life for students, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic.