Issue 1

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 on the roads.

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy our right to enjoyment of life. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for all, therefore affecting our working/learning. The pollution will adversely affect our quality of life, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic on our roads.

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy our right to enjoyment of life. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for all, therefore affecting our working/learning. The pollution will adversely affect our quality of life, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic on our roads.

I fully support the preferred options for improving Southend Airport and extending the runway to facilitate passenger and freight services using modern aircraft. The potential for increased employment opportunities within the area is an added bonus.

The proposed airport extension would have an adverse effect on the local town. The area is simply too built up with local housing to support the extension. It is too late to try to extend the airport without ruining the quality of life of thousands of people.

The proposed airport extension would have an adverse effect on the local town. The area is simply too built up with local housing to support the extension. It is too late to try to extend the airport without ruining the quality of life of thousands of people.

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

I specifically moved away from London City Airport to get away from the constant noise of aeroplanes taking off and landing. Let Southend-on-Sea stay a haven of escape from the noise and air pollution away from grid lock traffic and transport mayhem that comes with a busy day-to-day running of a commercial airport. This town would not be able to cope with the increase of traffic and transport problems, let alone the noise pollution.

It is noted that the airport may be subject to a runway extension to increase its ability to manage mid range aircraft. This has the potential to enhance the economic prospects of the Airport but will have environmental implications. It is important that should the runway be extended that adequate controls are in place to ensure that housing growth planned for Rayleigh, Hawkwell and Rochford is not compromised.

It is noted that the airport may be subject to a runway extension to increase its ability to manage mid range aircraft. This has the potential to enhance the economic prospects of the Airport but will have environmental implications. It is important that should the runway be extended that adequate controls are in place to ensure that housing growth planned for Rayleigh, Hawkwell and Rochford is not compromised.

Noise, pollution, traffic chaos, transport issues, threat to the environment - moved away from London City Airport for these exact reasons, moved to Southend for a better quality of life. I strongly object to the expansion of the airport of any level.

I have many doubts about the benefits of expansion, especially in this economic climate, where certainty is in short supply and the plans of government and corporations have gone drastically awry. Regenerating Southend and the Thames corridor is very important, but other methods and plans should be actioned, rather than adding over-capacity to the crowded skies of south east England.

I object on environmental grounds. The noise will be bad and the pollution will increase at a time when we are supposed to decreasing greenhouse gases. There will also be an increase of road traffic in an already congested area.

House and Childrens Schools(west Leigh)are directly under the flight path,Currently large planes shake our house and schools and noise interrupts conversations. Increase in noise and pollution where my children live learn and play will be unacceptable.Who will pay for the sound proofing.
A13/A127 are currently gridlocked at peak times,increase in passenger cars will cause an absolute nightmare,will not all will be getting the train!
No need for another Airport with Gatwick and Stanstead airports a short journey away.
Leigh-on-Sea is a lovely place to live and visit this expansion will decrease our house price, making Leigh a noisy polluted place to live.

I strongly object to the expansion of London Southend Airport. Our road transportation system is full to capacity as it is; we will need a 3rd trunk road into the town to get the airport users and employees into and out of the expanded airport. From an environmental aspect, the noise form aircraft taking off and landing will be intolerable for people living anywhere near te airport or near the flight paths as well as detering the normal visitors to the Southend area.

I strongly object to the proposal to extend the airport.
I can not believe that we would encourage more damage to the environment.
I believe that the claim of more job is unsupported
I believe that the road infrastructure is unsuitable
I am not happy that this will affect not only the value of my property but the noise level in my garden. My daughter is already afraid of the noise of aircrafts due to the low flying light aircafts that come over our garden
I strongly object to the further use of freight aircrafts.
This area is already serviced by a number of airports we do not need to enhance southend further. why not just further exhance the rail networks from Stansted

I strongly object to the extension of the Southend Airport runway. Totally unsubstantiated outcomes which will never be achieved. From every viewpoint, economic, environment, health & safety, your vision is a complete nightmare. There is not one town in this country with a busy airport within a mile of the high street. The visionaries of those towns chose to locate them outside the town with good transport facilites. This just adds to the total choas that currently exists in this borough. Get on with the job of clearing up this mess and stop wasting our time.

A a local resident I do not want bigger and higher volumes of planes flying over my house and garden

I strongly object to the expansion of the airport runway on the grounds on increased road traffic - unsustainable with the current road leading to pollution & reducing quality of life , as well as increased noise for all those living around or on the flightpath. The inference from the information made available is that noise levels will not increase with the expansion - such information is clouding the facts that obviously noise levels will be dependant on the number and type of aircraft using the airport - the runway extention would clearly increase air traffic and noise.

The idea that the new railway station in 'fundamental' to the expansion of Southend Airport is a poor argument. The catchment area for the new station would surely not be much more than the corridor between Southend Central and Brentwood? Any nearer London would make Stansted a more attractive option. People living along the Shoebury - Fenchurch St corridor would have to travel to Fenchurch St then cross to Liverpool St before being able to catch a train back to Southend Airport..by which time it would be quicker to fly from Stansted.

The hope that expansion of the airport will lead to improvements to the local economy completely fails to address the inevitable negative impact on the assets of homeowners living beneath the flightpath. In a falling property market that is already seeing many living in negative equity what committment is there that such people wiil receive adequate compensation that will enable them to relocate should this expansion go ahead?

I do not wish for Southend airport to be developed further, It is in a highly populated area and the additional noise of low flying aircraft over the area will have a severe effect on the local population.

Even if the planes are quieter and fuel efficient, there will still be too much pollution when we are supposed to be cutting down on carbon emissions.

Dear Sir,

I have lived in Rochford for some 40 years, choosing the area to live for its charm and history.

I strongly object to the proposed extension to the runway at Southend Airport. I can hardly credit that such a proposal has reached this stage of planning particularly when this was refused by the government inspectorate in 1966 on environmental grounds. The population of this area has risen dramatically since then so the reason for refusal in 1966 must surely be even greater in 2009.

With the rise in population density in the proposed flight path comes the real concern of a potential air catastrophe occurring.

If a referendum were offered to the citizens of Southend and Rochford on this matter I am certain there would be resounding objection to the current proposals. Are we not a democratic country in which the voices of the people are listened to and acted upon by their representatives - MP's and councillors?

May I remind you of the Council's stated "vision to make Rochford the place of choice in the County to live, work and visit":

The Council's objectives are to:-

- Provide an excellent cost effective frontline service for all our customers
- Work towards a safer and more caring community
- Provide a green and sustainable environment
- Encourage a thriving local economy
- Improve the quality of life for people in our district
- Maintain and enhance our local heritage.

The Council's values (the way we work and pursue these objectives are to:-

- Be an open, accountable, listening, responsive Council
- Put the customer and citizen at the heart of everything we do, delivering services in a caring and sensitive manner
- Co-ordinate the management of resources with an emphasis on sustainability
- Value the contribution of partners, employees and citizens, trusting each other and working collaboratively.

This smacks of hypocrisy when placed alongside the proposed plans.

My main objections to the proposals lie in Issue 1 of the Preferred Options - the extension of the runway.

Here it is stated, with a degree of flawed logic, that because you have a longer runway the additional planes flying will be "quieter and more fuel efficient" and that this will lessen the environmental impact on the surroundings. Squash these proposed plans and then you really WILL have made a valuable contribution to the environment. There is really no need for yet another airport serving the S.East.

I object to the prospect of my life being ruined by planes flying over my house every 5 minutes at the busiest times throughout the day, let alone the frequent freight flights that are promised us throughout the nights.

I object to the value of my property being dramatically lowered because it lies so close the flight path.

I object to having to live with the increase in air pollution and noise pollution in an already densely populated and congested area.

I object to not being able to enjoy my garden, especially during the summer months when doubtless the frequency of proposed flights would be greater.

I object to the foolhardiness of extending the runway into the area x on the plan "Areas for Change". Since this area xi (currently football pitches and facilities and agricultural land) would now have to serve as the safety zone should the extension plans go ahead. But this is earmarked for a large P&R facility - hardly a safe location if the plans go ahead. Also it brings the new safety zone right on to the A127 and a densely populated area. This reflects an utter lack of common sense!

I think the development of Southend Airport is a fantastic opportunity for the town, and along with the university and the new football stadium will ensure Southend remains 'on the map'. There are too many 'NIMBYS' who have moved into the vicinity of the Airport and then wish to complain. My last house in the area was on the flightpath, and even as a shiftworker I very rarely ever got disturbed. When I move back to the area, I would be happy to live in the same area. The jobs and development are too important to miss out on.

I object to expansion on the grounds of noise, pollution, transport impact and the unsuitable location of the airport within a densly populated residential area.
I strongly object to the extension of the runway and feel that this will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of thousands.

Whilst I agree that the airport could be better used, perhaps with occasional domestic/shorter distance flights on small passenger planes(eg to Scotland, Ireland, other parts of England, France etc) I feel very strongly that any improvements should be made within the current boundaries of the airport itself with no runway extension.

The 'Preferred Options' proposals are entirely unacceptable and I object on the following grounds:

Southend is a small town, currently with a very basic & overloaded road system. We simply cannot deal with extra traffic generated by 2 million passengers per year - and whilst the railway link is a great idea, let's be honest: in practise it will not be used by the majority of air travellers who would rather carry luggage by car to the airport. Remember we have NO motorway link, unlike other airports, and the A127 just cannot handle any more traffic.

2 million passengers per year means an average of over 5000 people per day passing through the airport. This could mean a ridiculous 50 flights a day! And in summer, it will be even worse. As a nearby resident I simply do not wish to be subjected to the constant noise and air pollution.

The suggested flight times begin too early and continue until too late in the evening. Children will be woken both morning and night. Flights should be restricted to 8am - 9pm maximum.

'Restricted night flights' mean nothing - restricted to what exactly? "Restricted" doesn't mean "none" - it means there WILL be some flights at night. And even one a night is too many.

The proposed extended runway ends around 500metres from a housing estate (Somerset Estate). As well as the noise and air pollution with all the flights day and night, there is a huge safety risk to residents in that area with planes taking off and coming in simply too close to houses.

There are at least two schools directly under the flight path - Blenheim Primary and St Christophers (with many others nearby). The extra noise generated by the airport expansion with planes constantly taking off will have a seriously detrimental effect on the children's quality of learning on a daily basis.

Finally, we are all being asked to reduce our carbon footprint, and one of the ways we are expected to do this is by reducing the amount of flights we take. Over the next fifteen years - during the time of the proposed airport expansion - flight travel should begin to decrease NOT increase. Therefore a newly expanded airport could find itself in a disastrous position.

I say NO to the preferred options.

As a resident of the North Leigh area for 44 years, I feel strongly that any developments should be kept inside the boundary of the airport as it is now.

There should be no extension of the runway. I am concerned that any extension would mean there would only be approximately one mile distance between the end of it and two local schools - Blenheim Primary and St Christopher's, which are directly under the flight path.

With a flight every few minutes, as there could be with two million passengers per year plus freight planes, it would create a considerable noise problem, and if there was an incident with any aircraft taking off or landing the consequences could be catastrophic for this densely populated area.

There is also the problem of local roads, which are unable to cope with the volume of traffic now, and would reach total gridlock with the extra traffic generated by these proposals.

I am concerned that some flights may even be operated at night, as there seems to be so little
information available about the regulations on
this.

In short, this ill thought-out scheme is not something I would wish for, either for myself or as a legacy to pass on to my children and grandchildren.

RE future development and role of London Southend Airport.
I do not believe the answer to the future of our area is by the expansion of the airport since the cost far outweighs any perceived benefit. Have the JAAP members saught advice from or consultation with other independentagencies and advisory panels found,for example, in Friends of the Earth, RSPB, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,Freight by Water, to help gain a better overview of the impact to our environment and other practical solutions to the bringing of sustainable, economic growth to our area?

I would fully support any expansion of Southend Airport