Issue 3

Renaissance Southend supports the Plan's intention to mitigate environmental impact and recognises that opportunities exist to achieve improvements on existing conditions in a number of areas. However, the evidence demonstrates that where potential for mitigation of environmental impact is limited that the overall economic benefit from the JAAP proposals outweigh the potential harm or impact.

The airport has already lost one or more attempts to extend the runway for environmental, planning and heritage reasons. The council seem to be ignoring this and pressing on regardless of the views of local citizens.

We have a major international airport only 40 minutes away that serves the area well. The proposed expansion will make southend, Leigh and Rochford accommodation black spots as there are a significant number of homes on the potential flight paths. The expansion of an airport in such a highly populated residential area is lunacy and the profits of private individuals is taking precedence over the interests of the many. There are very few (if any) major airports within such a close proximity to so many residential houses, the council however appears to be ignoring this.

We and our parents live on these flight paths and the noise even from "quieter" jets is horrendous. We are unable to hear each other speaking in our gardens when a plane comes into land and all residents affected are unlikely to be able to use or enjoy our garden in the same way. There will be thousands of houses and voters affected and the flight path will make most of Southend, Leigh on s Sea and Rochford, residential black spots. Southend residential area will eventually become not dissimilar to those near Heathrow - with one important differene. The houses of Southend will be right beside the airport instead of a reasonable distance from it.

Unless I can be assured that there will no environmental impacts as a result of this proposal (which is not stated) then I must object to the preferred approach on environmental grounds.

No details are given of new developments and opportunities for public open space, this cannot be supported if no proper information is given.
We support general recreational enhancements such as a Nature Park.
No details are given on controls on the airport operation or sustainable transport strategies. There must be a specified restriction on the types of aircraft used, the numbers of flights and restrictions on night flights. This will give a proper basis to limit noise, numbers, and types of aircraft when formal planning applications are made

Once full detail of noise impact is known i.e. what noise levels are and where they will be experienced, will they be published and will there be an opportunity for those affected to make their objections?
What will the Council do to monitor the noise levels to ensure they are within the agreed levels 24 hours per day, 365 days per year? Will there be a 'fast response' to breaches of noise levels, or would residents have to wait for the annual report, (which would be unacceptable).
How will the airport be held accountable for breaches of the agreed noise levels?

I do not agree with more activity from the airport.

It is stated that "the environmental impacts (noise and air quality) will need to be carefully managed" Except for policy LS7 on page 22. There is no detail about how noise and air quality will be managed. No mention is made of other environmental impacts, including loss of green belt, loss of agricultural land, loss of football pitches (area xi) and the subsequent loss of habitats. It is stated that "the preferred option is to pursue high scale employment growth". A major part of the plan seems to be job creation. Most of the office blocks in Victoria Avenue are empty and redundant, having been built in the 1960's, why are these not adapted and converted as modern offices/business units, since public transport is good in that area and they are close to the town centre. Victoria Avenue should be regenerated before development of more Green Belt land is allowed. A total of 6,200 additional jobs will be created. What kind of buildings will be allowed. More high rise blocks? The Green Belt should not be spoilt and developed if there is vacant capacity elswhere. e.g in Victoria Avenue. The construction of a new railway statiion at the airport, as proposed in the Airport Masterplan 2005, appears to be a good idea as it will attract more passengers and bring them by public transport. With the new railway station the Airport Masterplan estimates that there could be around 1 million passengers by 2012 and 2 million by 2030. Why is the extended runway needed? In paragraph 2.3 it is stated that in 2021 with an extended runway the airport could have 1 and 2 million passengers. Passenger numbers will therefore not increase a great deal if the runway were extended. Before irreparable damage is done to the local environment, it is essential that more research is carried out into the future use of Southend Airport, and the likely impact of expansion at Stanstead and Heathrow. Expansion at Southend is likely to be unneccessary, particularly if a second runway is built at Stansted. The Preferred Options document is full of jargon e.g the vision 'an area that realises its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy'. A public consultation document should be written in plain English. Terms such as 'sustainable' should have been included in the glossary. Why was the document not printed on double-sided paper? This would have saved on copies and paper. Issue (ii) and (iii) are contradictory. (ii) mentions improvements to public transport and reduction of current levels of car borne traffic. (iii) mentions road improvements and provision of new routes. It is well known that new roads only increase traffic. Elsewhere it is stated that the two local authorities 'are committed to enhancing the road network serving the areas to the east of Southend and Rochford' and that a corridor is safeguarded through area v. A road to the East was morted years ago and dropped, again connecting new roads to the East of Southend will only increase traffic and pollution at a time when public transport should be encouraged.

With the proposed high growth option it is impossible to fairly balance the environmental impact. Basically the runway extension should be a non starter on environmental grounds. Since the JAAP proposal Eddie Stobart has bought the airport and brought in the added dimension of freight planes and lorries. The additional noise caused by many more aircraft (passenger and/or freight) cannot be avoided. The JAAP statement "to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents" cannot be fulfilled.

This proposal will ruin large areas of the locality and must be prevented.

More activity from the airport would have an environmental impact. This is not something that should be managed but rather completely avoided - NO MORE FLIGHTS!! Quality of life can only be maintained by ensuring there are no more flights.

We are making an objection to all options as it is a badly thought out scheme, the only reason seems to be money driven by two persons Eddie Stobart and the manager at Southend Airport, reasons given below, and of course the revenue that Rochford and Southend council will receive.

We wish to record our objection to the Council's "Preferred option" of Scenario 3 "High Growth". In the first phase of consultation the majority of public respondents were opposed to Scenario 3 for some very good reasons. The infrastructure of the area will not support the increased traffic associated with the High Growth Scenario as there is already sufficient congestion on major routes into the town. This is a densely populated residential area and the environmental impact of more noise, pollution and prospect of considerably more flights night and day associated with a longer runway make the High Growth Scenario not viable. The extension of the runway was refused in 1966 by the Government Inspectorate on environmental grounds and we believe that we are much more aware of environmental issues now. Finally, the two councils should show greater consistency, the drive for more awareness via waste recycling is to be applauded, however this effort on the ground will be totally wasted by the huge environmental damage caused by carbon emissions, noise and pollution coming from the skies if Scenario 3 High Growth option is allowed to proceed.

I object to the airport expansion (it exacerbates climate change).

I find it difficult to perceive how development of an area can be balanced with environmental enhancement. Increased flights, bringing noise, pollution and danger in the air as well as associated ground level activity also bringing noise, pollution and further congestion on existing, unimproved infrastructure will not enhance the environment in which I live. I hope that this proposal is rejected by Government for the same reasons as the 1966 proposal to extend the NW/SE runway. But then I don't live in Hall Road and haven't got David Keddy as a neighbour!

Any increase in the number of planes flying over an area, particularly at low level as has to happen when they take off and land, necessarily impinges on the lives of those living near by. There is no such thing as a quiet plane, nor one that does not emit pollutants.

How can you manage noise?
Aeroplanes are noisy, especially cargo planes, and will greatly affect the quality of life in our area.
I live in Leigh, and when the odd jet flies over low the sound is deafening. Thankfully that isn't very often and a bit of a novelty, but would be a problem if they were flying over at the level to support the new proposals.
I am sure the passengers can see into our houses, they fly so low, and often wonder what would happen if one were to crash in such a built-up area (god forbid)!Has this been thought of?

As long as the environmental impact is fully taken into account and any Green belt areas taken out of this designation from within the existing airport boundaries are replaced with equivilent areas nearby. If the Country park could be extended into the area between the airport & Rochford then that would be a great asset

There has not been a full survey on the environmental impact that the developments at the Airport would have on the wider area

Objections/comments on London Southend Airport and Environs JAAP

Section 3 - Issue 1 para 2 and, by association, Issue 3

In connection with an increased runway facility at London Southend Airport, we are concerned that the Preferred Option only states 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 (which we presume relates to BOTH air and road traffic) in the area.

With the existing experience of air and road traffic relating to Stansted Airport in Essex, and with the sophisticated meteorological knowledge now available, can it not be possible to prepare a model of anticipated pollution potential for London Southend Airport under the Preferred Option. It must not be forgotten that while the local heavily populated environment has grown up in the presence of the airport, London Southend has only seen relatively little, numerically speaking, aircraft movements over the past 40/50 years in comparison with Stansted and other London Airports.

While the approach and immediate take-off zones are principally over open land, we should surely be expected to have some indication of potential pollution levels threatened through known wind directions and strengths and rain levels to make an informed decision on the way forward.

As we live on the borders of the runway the impact on our daily life will be immense for the rest of our lives. My husband and I are retired and after working for more than 55 years we were looking forward to enjoying some relaxation in our garden. Now we have to look forward to the upheaval of construction work on the extension to the runway which will start as soon as final approval has been given to the plans - very soon if it is to completed by 2012. Noise, more air pollution and inconvenience with heavy machinery working all day. What will happen to the road this stage, or will the road go ahead first? Again more air pollution and noise, and where exactly will it be located in relation to Eastwoodbury Lane? On the proposal it is almost outside my front door! So what does the future hold for us? Not able to enjoy our rear garden because of maybe 50+ planes flying over each day that equals about 1 every 15 mins. Not to mention freight flights at night. No privacy as planes are just taking off when they reach our garden, sometimes I can see the pilots in the cabin, so obviously passengers will be able to see into our garden. Not able to enjoy our front garden, again no privacy and the noise from both the aircraft and the road traffic. Another question. Where are all the cars going to be parked for the airport? Although a rail station is being built it does not provide many parking spaces and as always many more people will travel by car for convenience. We have been told that the 'Park & Ride' area near to Tesco's is designed mainly for people travelling to Southend. With all the other inconveniences and intrusions we would not wish to have to look at a 'used car lot' from our house. Designated as 'open space' for how long will this be open space and not used for car parking. The proposal plan shows the airport boundary lined in red. Why does the fence not follow this line? We understand that most of the smallholdings in our vicinity have been given purchase orders and wonder why it has not been thought necessary to include our property? The plan may be good for Southend? But we do not think any thought has gone into the welfare and wellbeing of the residents on the fringe of the airport and we do matter if not to you to ourselves.

Why should we as businesses or others as residents have to put up with any deterioration in the environment on the basis that so few will benefit, or has the Council some ulterior motive in all this?

All the careful assessments in the world will not mitigate the effects of 10,000 additional flights per year (1.5M passengers divided by 150 people per plane), or about 30 flights per day! Sadly, I don't believe a word about protecting protecting resident's quality of life.

The proposed controls on air traffic are lamentably inadequate.
Anyone seriously concerned about the quality of life of residents, does not put a busy flight path over a connurbation.
A park by the airport is not an adequate replacement of open, quiet countryside.
People need tranquility to live happily.

reduction of green space - the 'green lung' is in the environs of airport and thus will be subject to noise, pollution, and no doubt security controls.
Increase in CO2 - pollutes the whole world
Increase in traffic - it is bad enough now, and with proposals for hundreds of new houses this will get worse.
I can only see environmental deterioration for residents.

PWCC objects to this proposal

With regards to "New Open Space" I can't imagine that many people want to spend their recreational time walking around a field located between an Industrial Estate and a noisy airport. You say "Green Lung" I would call it "Black Lung".

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.

The comments made in the consultation document are aspirational and of no value to the public which is being asked to participate in this consultation process.

The evidence before the public is that night freight flights and daytime passenger flights will increase significantly. This will cause utter misery to the local population.

This is another example of a local authority which is at total war with its residents. The contempt Southend LA, in particular, shows for its residents is as breathtaking as the fumes that will engulf us from the planned expanded operations.

I support the councils taking a balnaced view on this, that also enables the objectives to be achieved.

This JAAP should consider protecting and enhancing the WHOLE environment with particular emphasis on climate change. Aviation is the fastest growing sector in terms of UK emissions, and the European Commission points out if current growth continues emissions from international flights from EU airports will have grown by 150% from 1990-2012 Local, regional and national government must act to prevent damaging climate change and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. A third of land based species could be on the pathway to extinction by 2050 unless immediate measures are taken to curtail increasing emissions.