Issue 3

A carefully balanced scheme is a must. The scheme must not be allowed to be overly hampered by environmental extremists whose sometimes blinkered views may seek to delay the plan going forward.

Fine words. But what will be done to stop noise?

Nice words - what do they actually mean and what are the constraints?

We applaud the words but need to know HOW will you "consider and assess noise and air quality"? and HOW will you "ensure quality of life is maintained for residents"?

I would like to know why the environmental issues that have been raised against proposed expansion of both Heathrow and Stansted Airports (by Local Councils & even the Mayor of London) do not appear to be applicable when considering the case of Southend Airport expansion...Surely the same environmental issues apply which give significant concern to the quality of life of local residents in both the Southend & Rochford Districts.

SECTION 3

Issue 3

Every opportunity should be taken to protect and enhance any existing habitats and protected species present in the JAAP area. The creation of habitat will help contribute towards local targets, e.g. Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) and meet the requirements of PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological conservation.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can help reduce the impact of flooding arising from development. SuDS schemes can help reduce surface water runoff rates and volumes whilst also addressing water quality issues, if implemented during development of sites around the airport.

One of the greatest long-term challenges affecting development of the airport is that of climate change; both the need to adapt to a changing climate and limit any possible future change.

Adaptation to the already inevitable change could involve choices such as providing new open space and green infrastructure that can provide urban cooling, SuDS and conserve and enhance biodiversity.

We want to see greater emphasis on managing demand for water, as well as using water more efficiently to help manage pressures on water resources. Climate change is expected to reduce the amount of water available, particularly in the South East, whilst, at the same time, we continue to use even more water.

We need to manage biodiversity in different ways in the face of climate change. Whilst making sure our existing protected sites are resilient to climate change, we need to move to landscape scale approaches to managing habitats to help encourage the movement of species as the climate changes.

While limitation of future climate changes can involve the highest possible level of resource and energy efficiency to reduce emissions. Further information is available in PPS 1 supplement: Planning and Climate Change.

We support using larger amounts of renewable energy from a wider variety of sources, helping limit greenhouse gas emissions. Development should seek to secure the highest viable resource and energy efficient standards and maximise sustainable transport options.

value of property will decline
Admission of increased noise and pollution quoted "(noise and air quality) will need to be carefully considered and assessed as a result of the increased aircraft movements and traffic in the area."
Expansion of the airport will NOT as quoted " ensure quality of life is maintained for residents"

support

The airport needs to put in place a publicly accessible and accountable environment team to ensure protection of our local environment and it should report its progress openly.

The council need to ensure the environment is not effected to a locally unacceptable level and it should also be open and approachable.

It is naive to say you can control aircraft use and traffic once this development has taken place. The use of the airport and business parks will be driven by commercial considerations. You are not creating public open space you are reducing it. Taking away green belt land cannot maintain the residents' quality of life.

My vision for the local environment is to keep Southend a delightful place to live, away from the noise and polution of London but within easy reach of the high skill and high paid jobs in the metropolis. Southend does well as a commuter town, why wreck it with intrusive aircraft noise?

Re Preferred Options decided by who?

Dear Sir

The airport can only expand in one direction - to the north and within a narrow corridor on the western side of the airfield. The present controlling nucleus of the airport is to the extreme south side of the field.

The area to the north of the airport that you intend to include within the airport's boundaries is therefore a considerable distance from the present control nucleus. Thus producing two separated areas; being vertually two islands of airport activity, separated still further by the runway, planned to be lengthened with its resited, longer connecting roads thus making these two separated islands of activity, one in the north, the main one in the south; even further apart and so will make operating this airport design inefficient and very costly to control plus obvious transportation problems.

Siting the rail station of the eastern boundary is easily reached using the airfield perimter road. Thus connecting sufficiently the controlling hub of the airport in the south with the rail station passengers. Through your design this would not be possible on the planned expansion area as no provision appears to include a perimeter road which'd reduce the area of expansion quite drastically. Resiting GREEN-BELT boundaries, to make a poor design for an airport to appear a little more attractive than it really is - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

The subject of the airports expected FREIGHT programme(s) are totally avoided! Why?

When was "extensive public consultation" carried out (Your Views 6.1). WHY is nobody, the public around the airport; aware of this?

Issue 3 Noise and air quality; to increased aircraft movements enhance each other! What plans can change this?

Issue 5 "Areas for Change" - needs to be directed at the above, visual and noise intrusion.

No controls in place to monitor this.

minimise traffic ! have you traveled along the a127 . i do every day ,and i sit in a 3 mile traffic jam .more cars,coaches and hgvs will make it worse ,why would you set up business here ,with the time delays and lost man hours ?

I strongly object to the airport expansion plans in terms of impact of noise levels, incrrased aircraft flying too near to houses, pollution, impact on traffic in the Southend area and impact on house prices.

I do not think that the results from the current consultation will be fully representative of the southend and rochford populations and would like to see a reprentative independent survey conducted about such an important matter that will impact all of our lives.

Doesn't look very balanced to us. The residents get the"benefit" of increased noise, pollution, dumped fuel etc etc from the planes and more traffic on already crowded roads. What do we get in return -- maybe some jobs and a train station.

how does more flights enhance the environment?

A detailed report has been commissioned from Bickerdike Allen and Partners and will be submitted in support of a planning application for the runway extension. Preliminary results including the noise contour predictions will be supplied separately to the Councils as soon as they are available. However, the key results are as follows:
• With or without a runway extension there are unlikely to be any houses exposed to noise levels in excess of 69 dB, normally the level for property purchase schemes.
• With the runway extension, there are likely to be around 40 households within the 63 dB contour, which is normally the basis of a sound insulation grant scheme.
• With a runway extension and 2 million passengers in 2020, the 57 dB contour (classified as 'the onset of community annoyance') would cover 3.2 km2. This compares with the actual 2007 contour which covers 2.0 km2.
• With the existing runway and 0.7 million passengers in 2020, the 57 dB contour would cover 1.3 km2.
• In 1967, the 57 dB contour would have covered over 20 km2.
• In terms of specific locations, there would be almost no change in noise levels at the north eastern end of the runway compared with 2007. Close to the south western end of the extended runway noise levels could increase by around 3dB, which the Government defines as discernable but of marginal significance. Elsewhere the change would be less than 2dB which would not be discernable to most people.
• The noise footprints of individual aircraft depend on the length of the runway. With the runway extension, the Airbus A319 can operate with a full payload and has a noise footprint of 2.6 km2. Without the runway extension, the RJ85 would be the largest aircraft that could operate with a full payload and would have a noise footprint of 3.2 km2.
In our response on the proposed conditions (Policy LS7) we have confirmed that we would be willing to discuss various conditions which would mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on the community.

STRONGLY OBJECT. Airport expansion/more flights can only be hugely detrimental to the environment and to the quality of life in this and adjacent areas. We should protect our wildlife and open spaces. There is no way that this development will 'enhance' the environment - what nonsense. Quality of life would NOT be "maintained" for residents, it would DETERIORATE markedly.

I believe that the preferred option is a well-balanced package that does much to minimise the negative impacts that are inevitable with any proposal of this type. It should not be forgotten that future air passengers in south east Essex will, by choosing Southend flights be reducing their home-to-airport impact (currently using whichever of London's five airports offers the destination/service they require).

The opportunity to consolidate and expand high-technology aviation/avionic employment should not be passed by; without an active airport business going forward they will eventually be lost to other locations, like Norwich or Manston.

This exapansion will damage the environment and should not proceed. This goes to show that green issues are not a priority to local governments.

Object Issue 3: The traffic congestion caused by airport expansion will be intolerable for local residents. The infrastructure proposals will not elminiate traffic congestion and environmental pollution - they will significantly impact negatively on quality of life.

Object Issue 3: Development/Environment: Airport expansion amounts to noise and air pollution, traffic congestion, health risks and a lesser quality of life. There is no such thing as 'quiet aircraft' and freight flying means noisier aircraft throughout the night. Too many sacrifices for one company's profit and no community gain.

As someone who works in Southend and lives in Rochford, the economic and employment benefits of the airport development far outweigh any of the objections put forward.

Aviation growth is unsustainable and a phased aviation reduction strategy is the only way to successfully manage the environmental impacts of the airport.
It is necessary to limit industrial estate or "business park" growth to the existing boundaries. Loss of agricultural land is unacceptable given the need for the UK to become self-sufficient in food during the next 15-20 years as a consequence of Peak Oil.
If biofuel technologies are pursued, farmland will be put at even more of a premium. Thus, a wise planning authority will reuse all existing "brownfield" sites before permitting any agricultural or greenbelt land to be used.

Any extra road traffic caused by airport plans will be INSIGNIFICANT compared with the level of traffic a supermarket like Tescos generates.
Any down sides to the proposal are significantly outweighed by the benefits (IE: modern, quieter aircraft, limits on the number of night flights compared to none at present, etc).
This is a well-balanced package that minimises the negative impacts, and provides valuable employment opportunities. There are environmental benefits also as passengers in south east Essex will not have to drive to the main London airports, thereby reducing their carbon emissions.

An increase in aircraft movements and the maintainance of the quality of life of residents are mutually exclusive. Any increase in aircraft movements will have a negative impact on residents no matter how much quieter or more fuel efficient aircraft are. The level of nusance will increase.

Like anything, it has to be in perspective. The proposed aircraft operating out of Southend will be quieter, offer better climb rates and be more fuel efficient than the aircraft operating in the peak times of the 60s and 80s. Locals will not have to drive on the already congested roads to the other London airports. Flight,ground taxi and holding times will be significant less from Southend compared with other airports in London area.
However any development should be as sympathetic to the environment as possible and the airport should be encouraged to balance the impact with 'green' proposals.

STRONGLY OBJECT. Increased pollution and noise. with the current knowledge on our carbon emissions this development will destroy all the good work that is being done. In my view a significant step backwards and obviously initiated by those who have no more than financial greed in their sights. Take a look at the financial/ecological irresponsibility in the news today. Do you want to stand accused of the the same in the next decade and beyond? There's enough empty business units in essex. Why not be brave, leave the airport as it is, become carbon neutral pioneer. It's the future!

The local roads and infrastructure can't cope with the current level of traffic and certainly will not be able to cope with any increases.
Also, where is the new open space going to come from ? The Southend area is already one of the most densely populated areas in the country.