Issue 2

Whilst employment opportunities should be welcomed, this can not be at the expense of qualilty of life. International studies continually indicate that peaceful, secure and sustainable communities lead to higher levels of happiness. Congested and polluted areas lead to poor health and reductions in life satisfaction levels. The airport expansion policy involves sacrificing too much for the sake of economic expansion. It will lead to lowered residential property values and a spiral of blight in large areas of the town.

The Essex Chambers of Commerce strongly supports the preferred option to pursue high scale employment growth within the JAAP area and to allocate sufficent employment land for this potential to be realised. The Chamber also welcomes the opportunity to create a number of unique highly skilled and high value jobs within the aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul sector and view this as a major benefit to the local economy.

Surely growth in employment would not be by osmosis.Jobs in business parks dont just appear because either the premises are there or an airport is next door.Not enough thought has gone into this as to where these jobs will come from and more importantly what type of jobs they will be.Will thes jobs be local residents or will they be specialist ,in which case it will then mean an increase in commuting and even more traffic on our already congested roads.

I am concerned about the considerable and unnecessary expansion of the industrial estate and the loss of greenbelt and good farmland.

The area adjacent to Cherry Orchard Way was originally allocated as a business park but lay unused for years. It was then occupied by travellers and when they were forced to leave it cost thousands to clean the site up. This area is still 50% empty and the rest is now car showrooms and a petrol station/shop.

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 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 strongly object to the proposed Business Parks near Southend Airport being in linked with the proposed Airport Runway Extension.
There is no dependency between them suggested in either the new or old JAAP reports or anything else I have seen. According to the JAAP Report of the 7380 total jobs expected to be created 6200 jobs are due to the Business Parks, leaving only 1180 due to the Airport expansion. How many of these 1180 would be created without the runway extension is not given. These two proposals should be considered and voted on independently.

Everything comes at a price, I am not prepared to trade in the 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. I specifically moved away from London City Airport to escape the constant noise of aeroplanes taking off and landing. Let Southend/Rochford be, we would not be able to cope with the increase of traffic and transport problems, let alone the noise/air pollution.

The strategy for planned employment growth at London Southend Airport requires further consideration. Barratt Eastern Counties supports the growth of London Southend Airport for commercial purposes linked to the Airport and to help fulfil the employment needs of Southend Borough, which it adjoins. However, the strategy for providing a large proportion of Rochford's employment growth at the Airport appears unsustainable. The Airport is currently mostly accessible only by car from Hawkwell, Rayleigh and Rochford with limited bus services along the B1013. The settlements of Hawkwell and Rayleigh in particular are not as well connected to London Southend Airport. The Airport is not therefore considered a sustainable location for Rochford District wide employment growth. It is considered that the main settlements of Rochford, Hawkwell/Hockley and Rayleigh should be the focus of new employment growth and that the Airport be the location for Airport related development and employment growth linked to Southend.

The draft Core Strategy published in October 2008 highlights Rochford, Hawkwell/Hockley and Rayleigh as being "top tier" settlements for new housing growth. We consider that a sustainable development strategy would necessitate retention of existing employment areas and new employment growth at these locations to supplement new housing development. It is recognised that the airport and its environs could be developed with sufficient support infrastructure including employment related development but a balance needs to be struck so that unsustainable travel patterns are not created between Rochford and Southend an the Airport.

By targeting the majority of employment growth at the Airport there is a very real danger that the important open gap between the Airport/Southend and Rochford begins to close and that the two settlements coalesce. Rochford has a distinct character which would be undermined by this process. The Vision should therefore be refined to ensure that sustainable development principles and the principles embodied in PPG13 are not compromised. This will mean reconsidering at least one of the proposed employment allocations in favour of new locations at the "top tier" settlements.

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.

Airports and the airline business is a highly cyclical business; what guarantee is there that if the preferred option is adopted, the local residents of Southend will not have to finance a white elephant of an airport if the future airline carriers attracted to the airport and Eddie Stobart go under?

I don't believe the airport will generate many extra jobs. Southend is not easily accessible and so is not a first choice for locating jobs.

The local infrastructure does not support this kind of growth and the increased traffic in the area will not improve the quality of life for residents. The idea of employement opportunities is a pipe dream which is being used as a carrot with which to make the airport plans sounds more favourable. There is no guarantee to say this employment will materialise and the quality of the employment on offer.

These over optomistic forecasts are totally unrealistic in the current economic conditions. With little prospect of growing passenger numbers the airport will have to rely on MRO business which means old noisy planes endangering the town. There is no prospect of achieveing the job levels forecast because we lack the infrastructure to allow companies to operate efficiently. We are too far from the M25 and two of the worst roads in the country linking it.

the airport extension is not a prerequisite for the employment potential . Addiitnal aviation related employment shouold be encourged but not to the detriment of local peopel due to the expansion of the number of flights As stated in the airport masterplan in 2005 , many of the benefits for employment can be created without a runway increase . Finally - The paragraph ends with stating that the re-allocation of land and re development " will deliver 6200 jobs" - a very bold statement , I'd suggest that "could" may be a better choice of words !

What committment is there to ensure that local people will benefit from any increase in employment opportunities? Has a legally binding quota or percentage been agreed to guarantee that these jobs will go to the people of SouthEast Essex, or is this just wishful thinking?

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.

Whilst it is good to offer more jobs, where are all these people going to live? The infrastructure just cannot cope with an influx of people.

The creation of employment should not be included in this consultation. It is a carrot that will not be adhered to or enforced. New businesses do not always bring benefits and jobs for a few should not come at the expense of the majority.

n

Same as all the others. It is so obviously wrong.

There will not be increased in employment directly due to the extension of the airport. Any increased employment will be down to extended industrial areas!! If the airport need more employess why are some of those currently employed in maintenance being sent elsewhere to work?

My objection is to the loss of greenbelt land. There are already thousands of sq m of factory and office space in Southend that no one can find a use for why would new businesses flood to a new industrial area? What planet do the planners live on?

5,500 new jobs great 5,500 additional vehicles on the roads in rush hour. Which part of the green belt will be taken to build new roads? Priory Park not enough? what happens when the whole of this area is either tarmaced or cemented over and all the green areas have been used up. How wide is this green lung going to be into Rochford what about other green lungs to compensate for all the additional pollution caused by vehicles used by these new businesses?

This proposal must be at least proven to be carbon neutral before being given the go ahead.

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

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

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

There are many industrial areas already so additional space is not required. Job creation should be centred on areas of the country where it is needed.

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

Thank you for your letter of 19 2 09 giving opportunity to respond to above consultation.

At 1.5 Preferred Options, you say "feedback from Issues and Options Report has been carefully considered and used to prepare Preferred Options for future development in the area". In spite of statement that the bulk of respondents objected to "Scenario 3 - High Growth2, this is the option chosen, with comment at a meeting in the Freight House that the exercise was not meant to be a referendum. That casts doubt on its validity.

I object to the Preferred option as follows.

Issue 2 Jaap as employment area

Vide HAAP, where demolition of Hockley trading estate is proposed for housing etc, we hear traders are to be moved to new Saxon Business park. No doubt other trading sites will be moved there also for similar reasons. So much for proposed 5450 new jobs in the JAAP.

Issue 3 development/environment

Inspite of proposed "quieter more fuel efficient planes than predecessors"< it is "accepted environmental impacts (noise) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of increased aircraft movements and traffic in area". There is some contradiction here and an admission that those under the flight path in Southend area will suffer. Two area authorities "Continuing to work to establish a baseline of noise levels" is admission that proximity to a large, dense residential area of proposed expanded airport is possibly unacceptable and a "Noise Evaluation Statement" by any future operator will just whitewash it.

Transport

Would it be a good idea to get full infrastructure details of road and transport networks worked out first? There is no guarantee that a hypothetical operator will pay for SERT or any other initiatives.

Policies T1-2

It appears from Nestuda Way to Warners Bridge a lot more demolition of homes will occur than is envisaged already for extending the runway. Although St Lawrence church was saved, the addition construction, followed by transiting planes might well shake it to pieces. Are we also reconsidering the bypass from Shoebury through Rochford green belt here?

Policy T3

If Cherry Orchard Way is to be dualled, what requirements will there be to further 'update' the remainder of b1013 between Rayleigh and Rochford, that has already increased congestion since the cherry Orchard bypass was opened? Compulsory purchase of front gardens was used to widen b1013 in Hockley in the 1960s. This time homes will go as well.

Policy T9

There is already airport provision at Stansted. Why should operators come here? It does appear from "existing and proposed communities with new development sites...support...promote..new development...by public transport links" that airport expansion is a ploy to provide future new road networks round south east Essex, for massive new development. Southend is already fully developed and evidently needs to expand. The initial amendment of the green belt boundary proposed in the document could show the way for more in the future for development.