Issue 1

Object

Representation ID: 8145

Received: 14/04/2009

Respondent: mr peter allwright

n

Object

Representation ID: 8155

Received: 14/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Lewis

This should have been permanently resolved in 2005 when the Masterplan suggested the current runway would be used and the church saved.Given current economic climate- no guarantee of this number of new jobs or indeed new business investment. Strong objections to: increased traffic on already congested A127 and local roads/ increased levels airtraffic noise day and night/ reclassification of greenbelt land/ impact on local house prices/ impact on residents during major construction work/ danger of increased airtraffic over highly populated area.

Support

Representation ID: 8197

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Coe

I support all the prefered options including development of London Southend Airport. Their aim is to make our area a viable place to work and live in the future - something our decendants will thank us for. Forget the negativity of the NIMBY's. Incidentally the purpose of the extended runway, as I understand it, is two-fold:-
(a) Overshoot safety.
(b) Heavier, fuel-laden aircraft not needing to climb away so steeply thus reducing noise and pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 8203

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Stacey

There are enough planes that currently fly overhead. They are so low it often sounds like the planes are about to land on our house. I am petrified of flying and hate it when a plane flies as low as it does over our house, but with large jets flying above, it is going to make living here unbearable.

Object

Representation ID: 8205

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Alison Wheatley

Against any runway extension due to environmental impact as previously rejected in 1966 and now increased residential area.Noise/iar pollution & safety factors apply as well as road access/congestion. Severe house blight will occur requiring adequate prior guarantee of compensation scheme for all local residents to be agreed with council. No loss of green belt etc.

Object

Representation ID: 8213

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Brent Lee Wheatley

Preferred object is to abort the scheme as residents will force issue of a Publis Enquiry if necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 8214

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Brent Lee Wheatley

Obvious!

Support

Representation ID: 8216

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mr James Smith

We are incredibly fortunate to have a large componay willing to provide huge investment which can only be beneficial for the people of Southend. Unfortunately many of the negative comments posted are based upon untrue and innacurate staements which the SAEN group has been giving to local people. Read the airports new website (google search 'flysouthend2012') for the real truth about the true plans of exapansion

Object

Representation ID: 8218

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jennie Johnson

I feel the 'consultation' is fundamentally flawed. I live in Eastwoodbury Lane, nobody has 'consulted' residents, little or no information has been willingly forwarded to us. Any formal information (other than snippets from newspapers & St Laurence Church) has been sought for ourselves & without internet access information would be severely limited. This is backed up by the 'consultation period' being extended in my view! We are losing Eastwoodbury Lane and becoming a rat run for the A127, we will lose St Laurence Park. Ironically Southend Council finally signpost it now we are losing our green area!!

Object

Representation ID: 8224

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Michael Wright

Whilst the airport site has stayed relatively static for some time, homes around it have gone through a major increase in developement and population. The proposed "regeneration" of the airport with all its effects, increased traffic, conjestion, noise, polution and safety concerns will cause a blight on many homes and families in the densly populated area. The carrot of extra busineses and jobs being created is unknown with any future businesses looking further afield for the skils and expertise they require. With the present owner this will be the thin edge of the wedge for a masive freight movement.

Object

Representation ID: 8485

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: mr Graham Glover

The infrastructure will not support the increased traffic arising from larger aircraft

Object

Representation ID: 8504

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Susan Ginn

As Leigh residents we are concerned about noise levels. Councillor Anna Waite's comment: "Eddie Stobart could run unlimited flights all day and night on the current runway using old, noisy planes" seems like a thinly veiled threat - accept the proposals or expect more noise. How quiet are these 'new, quieter planes'? How much will residents be affected and how much disruption will there be to the education of thousands of children at schools directly under the flightpath? Also, although accident risk is low, there is still potential for disaster with airport so close to schools/housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8601

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Melvyn Sach

I object on environmental grounds. New aircraft maybe quieter and cleaner, but there will be more of them, thus negating that arguement. There will be just as much pollution, both noise and air quality.

Object

Representation ID: 8605

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Warwick-Brown

This whole concept fills many of us in the town with great trepidation!! We are already a grossly overcrowded cul de sac and even with the proposed improvements in access to the town surely this will make matters worse, and even noisier too.

Also, of course, flying will become an expensive luxury in the years to come - will we need all these extremely expensive and noisy airports!!??

Support

Representation ID: 8629

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Stoll

I am in favour of the airport being developed per se. However, looking at the worst scenario of 2 million passengers a year by 150 seater aircraft equates to 13,333 flights or 37 flights a day. Come on, let's get real!! And why do these relatively small planes need a longer runway when they can be seen taking off and landing in half the existing length. And I'm very dubious about the so called employment opportunities and the figures quotes. Where are all these people going to come from and how will their needs be catered for.

Object

Representation ID: 8686

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mark Goodchild

I strongly object to further expansion of Southend airport. My reasons are as follows,
The local roads would not be able to cope with the increased traffic, with the seafront touting for business and the summer flights, the local roads would be at a standstill. The noise and pollution levels would increase drastically. Quality of life for the locals will be affected by the above. No consideration for the local community has been considered in these proposals.
The 2nd airport newsletter in as many years getting all excited about ill concieved proposals sums it up.

Object

Representation ID: 8691

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Andrew Todd

London already has three airports does it need another? This is just a backup plan in case Heathrow and Stanstead expansion does not get the go ahead. Extending the runway to allow fixed base carriers will in no way what so ever improve environment it will make it worse and the suggested operating hours are too long Belfast City does not have any landings after 21:30. An aircraft just took off at 22:30 and woke 6 month old up AGAIN so I will never agree to operating this late in the day.

Object

Representation ID: 8693

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: John Andrews

The current use of the airport and presence of some larger planes has shown that these planes need to approach the runway lower and from farther away.
As residents of Leigh-on-Sea we have seen our council tax bills increase immensely. It's always been a very desirable place to live and as such has come at a fairly steep premium.
The resultant effect or more large planes can only be less public desire to live in Leigh and Chalkwell, thereby bringing down the area and subsequently the income received through Council taxes and public income.

Support

Representation ID: 8703

Received: 21/04/2009

Respondent: mrs Muriel Mauz

I fully support the expansion of the airport. It is a business and trade opportunity, which this region cannot afford to ignore. People just object for historical reasons, without fully researching the proposed plans.In this volatile economic environment Southend cannot afford to throw away this 'edge' due to uninformed opinions.

Support

Representation ID: 8776

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Turner

If Southend Airport is not allowed to expand & lengthen it's runway then this town will continue to wither and die. The economy is already collapsing with shops closing on a regular basis. The airport expansion would help stop & even reverse this economic decline, beinging in new jobs & attracting new businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 8812

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: mr stephen pointer

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

Object

Representation ID: 8837

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: MR Gordon Howsden

The creation of facilities for more air travel is out of step with environmental concerns.

Object

Representation ID: 8852

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr. Stephen Burgess

I object on the grounds of increased noise, pollution and traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 8883

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Steve Watts

The Southend area is already over congested with inadequate road networks, adding more traffic - forget the new railway station, people with luggage will not use it - to overloaded roads. The extended runway will add noise and pollution but also the additional helicopter usage will add considerable more noise than most modern aircraft. With the need to grow more of our own food taking good agricultral land and turning it into open spaces is foolhardy.

Object

Representation ID: 8887

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Anne Sutherland

with stansted airport so close there is no need to expand southend airport. The aircraft used maybe more fuel efficient but with the increased volume of planes flying in and out there will be nothing quiet about the noise generated.

Object

Representation ID: 8917

Received: 23/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Groom

To increase the current flight levels would make living near the flight path extremely noisy and pollute the air.
We should be looking for greener ways to travel and air travel is not one of these.
If there is to be major investment it should solely focus in on providing industrial sites for use without dependance on the airport.

Object

Representation ID: 8977

Received: 23/04/2009

Respondent: mr tim lowes

I cannot stress strongly enough how against this I am, I currently own 3 properties within 2 miles of Southend airport, all of which are mortgaged. The result of these plans will mean the drop in price due to the airport will likely result in the repossession of 2 if not 3 of these properties. I look after my elderly father and fear this will result in us both losing everything we have ever worked for.

Support

Representation ID: 9031

Received: 25/04/2009

Respondent: Dr Stephen Holmes

My wife used to live in Rochford and she says that after a few weeks that she did not notice the sound of the airport. So Im going to support this proposal for the JAAP

Object

Representation ID: 9133

Received: 27/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Debra Emmerson

Sounds like hell. More planes, more people, more noise more conjestion.

Support

Representation ID: 9184

Received: 27/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ken Morris

Can I register full support for the plan to develop the airport as the preferred options.

Ken Morris