Issue 3

I don't feel this adequately addresses the issues involved. There will be considerable impact on the quality of air over the houses and the schools in the flight path as well as the impact of increasing noise levels both day and night. There is already concern about the amount of air pollution and its consequences to health in this part of south-east Essex and more flights will only make the situation worse. This is a heavily populated area and therefore I do not consider it is advisable to expand the airport and increase the number of flights.

What level of visibilty will there be to the considerations that are being made to the environmental Impacts?
Is there anywhere that the criteria for the environmental impact and assessment is available, flight paths, noise levels etc?

We live under the flightpath. No consideration has been given, or will be, as far as I can see, to people in our position. We will have to live with incessant noise, air pollution day in day out and at night, and can see our quality of life being destroyed beyond belief, how can 40 odd so flights a day over our rooftops possibly be "ensuring the quality of life is maintained for residents" as stated in this issue 3

The proposals if followed will generate huge adverse environmental impact. They will increase noise, contaminate air quality and cause increased road congestion. Residents will suffer hugely as a result of the suggested proposals.

As a resident of Leigh for the past 20 years and somebody who, having moved into the area from another part of the country, has appreciated the location and its beauty for that time, I wish to record my opposition to the plans to expand the Airport

1. The clear general antipathy of the public towards flying and its deleterious effects on the environment are being ignored for the sake of corporate profits

2. The quality of life in Leigh is being ignored

3. The economic argument - that 7,000 or so jobs will be created - is unprovable (ask the people being made redundant at Eurostar's Ebbsfleet and Ashford stations)

4. The damage to the tourist attractions - Old Leigh in particular are being ignored - and to the local community areas such as Broadway is being ignored

5. The disruption to schools in the area will be tangible


I am not convinced by any suggestions that night flights wil be minimal - freight flights in particular worry me

If I am not happy to live under a flight path then nor are my peers - so you can expect house prices to suffer over the next few years as people exit the area and newcomers with less spending power come in and the obvious consequences to the local economy

It is inconceivable to us that the development of an airport can bring any environmental enhancement. To suggest that the development would increase sustainability is preposterous.

The loss of agricultural and green belt land to airport expansion is wholly unacceptable given that we should aim to become self sufficient in food production and protect areas of biodiversity. The increased demand for biofuels makes agricultural land even more valuable. Expansion will substantially reduce the quality of life of the local population with increased air pollution from aircraft and traffic congestion and increased noise pollution as quiet aircraft do not exist. We are under government pressure to reduce our carbon footprint but airport expansion will not allow us to achieve this.

Excellent balanced proposal.

we can have a business park without airport expansion. in fact we could have a bigger business park if the airport closed. it is not honest to imply that we need airport expansion to get a business park. the land should be used for a business park and affordable housing

How is the surrounding environment to be protected from both noise and air pollution. As the Airport operates now, today, when planes are tested on the airports perimeter the noise and air pollution are appalling. The smell of aviation fuel pervades the whole area. That is with the very small operations that currently exists. With the expansion, one assumes some of the new business will be aviation maintenance related and I see no evidence that the plan has detailed any constraint on how they will be constrained. Specifically WHO will decide what is acceptable ?

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 wording of this policy is very worrying. Whilst acknowledging environmental impacts it maintains that they are inevitable and must be managed. They are not inevitable. Reduced plans could avoid the blighting of the Rochford Hundred environment and the quality of life in Southend. The 'careful consideration' of new development location unsurprisingly exploits Green Belt land - careful? Sustainable transport strategies are a figleaf as most people will travel by car. The environmental strategy is severely lacking due to the fundamentally inappropriate location of the airport for major expansion.

The Essex Chambers of Commerce supports the approach proposed for balancing development with environmental enhancement.

To use the words"environment"and "enhancement" in the same context as airport runway extension is stunningly preposterous.Do you honestly feel that the 20000 residents that live under the flight path will look forward to having their environment "balanced" and "enhanced" with jets over their heads every few minutes!

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.

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 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 runway being extended, this the highest growth option may well enable the use of the Airbus 319 (supposedly quieter than the current aircraft) but what other aircraft will this extension allow and how noisy are they? All that use the airport already but now fully loaded (thus more noisy and now taking off 189m nearer) plus other bigger and more noisy aircraft. 727 (now with full load), 737-600, 757-200, MD-90-30 are a few that I know of that take the same length of runway but there are lots more.
Our protection:- 'The airport operator will be required to publish an annual Noise Evaluation Statement to be set against the requirements of the agreed baseline position.' is all I've seen in writing. This means little other than the local council doesn't have to pay for the legal requirement of producing noise figures. As for ' The operation of cargo flights, from2300 to 07:00, will be controlled by an agreed noise quota'. Cargo flights tend to use older more noisy aircraft, so how many times are we to be woken up?
Strong objection. The A127 is already well know for it's daily jams and high accident rate, with the extra passenger and cargo traffic it will just not be able to cope at all. Add the extra time that will be taken by every A127 commuters together and it will far outweigh any possible financial gain from the airport.

The only way that quality of life will be maintained for residents whose homes are under the flight path is for the planned expansion and runway extension to be dropped. It is noted that the preferred option is considering controls on airport operation. Leigh is on high ground and there is no way that additional low flying fully laden aircraft will result in environmental enhancement for the area. Residents directly affected by the noise and air quality problems being created by the planned expansion should be allowed to participate in the control process including setting noise quotas.

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.

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 understand that living near an established small airport brings a degree of inconvenience; however the level of negative externalities associated with small airport expansion, does not, in my opinion, counter-balance the positive aspects to the local populous.

This will not ofset the increase of noise and pollution. Leigh in particular benifits from commuters living here and enjoying the local ammenities. This will be ruined by an increase of noise and pollution from aircraft.

None of the noise and pollution considerations have been properly documented or explained to the local residents and therefore it is very hard to see how increased size and volume of planes are going to mean anything but more noice and pollution over my house in Leigh.

Southend BC have not managed the transport strategies for Southend Hospital expansion or the RBS offices. For years residents have suffered from lack of parking to cater for the influx of patients and visitors and RBS employees. I object on the grounds that there is no prospect of this being achieved.

Any increase in the number and frequency of flights directly over Leigh on Sea is intolerable. There is a considerable difference between 'quieter' aircraft, and 'quiet' aircraft. Double- or triple-glazing is no benefit to people who wish to enjoy their gardens during the Summer months, and an 11pm cut-off time for flights is no benefit to the thousands of children in the area who will be in bed trying to sleep long beforehand. Studies have shown that exposure to aircraft noise, even while sleeping, can directly affect blood-pressure levels, leading to an increase in the incidence of hyper-tension and strokes, along with other heart-related illnesses.
As regards the wider environment, the UK is already unlikely to meet it's commitments on Carbon emmissions, and aviation fuel pollution is wrecognised as a considerable contributor to this problem. The inevitable increase in traffic on the A127 and A13, with the consequent increase in both noise and fuel pollution, further points towards any expansion at Southend Airport having a negative impact on the environment, both locally and internationally. My wife and I have been resident in Leigh on Sea for five years, and care very deeply for the area, encouraging people to come and visit the beaches and marshes. If this expansion goes ahead we will reluctantly have to consider moving to another part of the country.

Your consultation notes that 'the environmental impacts (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.' You omit to mention that it will also have to be lived with and endured by a great many people who will enjoy no benefit whatsoever from the airport expansion. You make reference to ensuring that 'quality of life is maintained for residents', but fail to mention what sort of quality of life. Is this a guarantee? Will I be able to sue you for damages in the event that you fail to 'ensure' that my 'quality of life is maintained'?

The only way to 'maintain the quality of life for local residents' is to NOT extend the runway and NOT increase the number of flights. Leigh-on-Sea residents and schools near the flight path already suffer from planes that shake houses, rattle windows, interfere with TV and prevent conversation. A plane every 10 minutes or so would be unbearable and destroy Leigh..what are Leigh councillors doing???