Issue 3

I am writing to register my objection to plans to expand London Southend Airport. The preferred option plans stand in opposition to recent government policy statements regarding the need to reduce climate changing emissions and improve food security. The proposals serve only the interests of some sections of the business community, not the interests of the environment nor local communities.
My objections concern the following:
Climate change: It is absurd to foster the expansion of the aviation industry both locally and nationally at a time when the UK government has set significant targets to reduce emissions, particularly when CO2 emissions at altitude have double the impact of those emitted at ground level, making the aviation industry a significant contributor to the problem. Restricting opportunities to fly will damage the aviation industry but could well stimulate other sectors of UK industry -especially tourism and food production - in addition to having environmental benefits.
Noise: The proposed significant expansion of flights, including night flights, will render large areas of Rochford and Western Southend unpleasant places in which to live and work. The ownership of the airport by a freight haulage firm suggests that a significant proportion of flights will relate to freight movements which use aircraft that are likely to be much noisier than the latest passenger aircraft that some suggest will be in service. The opportunity afforded to some sections of the local community for occasional easy access to Europe in no way compensates for the deterioration in quality of life the increased noise levels will impose on the whole community throughout the year.
Loss of Green Belt Land: the land marked on plans as ii(a) and iii(c) is Metropolitan Green Belt and should remain as such. The overdevelopment of this part of Essex is already at worrying levels and no further erosion of MGB should be allowed. In addition, the development of these areas seems to serve only to fund the airport expansion rather than accommodate any proven need for industrial development. South-East Essex already has empty office and factory accommodation that can be developed to meet any such need.
Loss of agricultural land: airport expansion and industrial development will result in the further loss of agricultural land that is unwise at a time when we are becoming more concerned with food security issues.
Employment Opportunities: the new jobs predicted will largely relate to nearby industrial estates (Aviation Way, Nestuda Way and Saxon Way) which need not be dependant on the airport's expansion. The airport expansion itself is unlikely to provide many lasting local employment opportunities. Local skills shortages mean that skilled personnel are likely to be brought in from other areas and only semi and low skill jobs (such as baggage handling and warehousing) will be available to the local population. This is of no great significance and does not compensate for the deterioration in quality of life for local communities caused by airport expansion. Indeed, the loss of quality of life could well be a factor, along with increased road congestion, which could deter new businesses from locating in South East Essex. In terms of the wider UK economy, more jobs could be provided by policies that support the UK leisure and tourism industry than those that promote more overseas travel.
Traffic Congestion: an already heavily congested road network in South-East Essex cannot possibly serve an additional 2 million passengers per annum together with an undisclosed number of freight lorry movements unless the vast majority access the airport and industrial areas by rail. Any significant improvement in road access would depend on a major new outer bypass to the A130 which itself would involve much loss of Green Belt, agricultural land, biodiversity and tranquillity, and would serve in the long term to promote still more urban development in the relatively peaceful countryside of the Roach and Crouch valleys.
Other concerns: I have concerns about the impact of runway lengthening on St Lawrence Church and other local buildings, which is not adequately considered in the JAAP.
Conclusion: Policies and plans maintain current or moderately expanded passenger services, and promote the existing Maintenance Repair and Overhaul services already at the airport would, I believe, be acceptable to local communities. However, the scale of the proposals, if the maximum expansion option were accepted, would be such that there would be a very significant deterioration in quality of life for local communities (through air, noise and light pollution and through traffic congestion), without significant benefits to these communities. Surely the local authorities (Southend Unitary Authority and Rochford District Council) have a duty of care to their communities to ensure that such a loss of quality of life does not occur. I urge them to reject the proposals contained in the JAAP preferred options.

No detail is given to the principles and guarantees relating to the environmental impacts - noise and congestion - due to the increased aircraft movement and traffic in the area. Many residents of Rochford moved here as it was a quiet market town with several green spaces
We need a guarantee that the noise level will be limited to a certain amount and restricted, with no night flights (Whether passenger or freight) and that the flights will be limited to a certain no per hour.
There is talk of one every 11 minutes which is high level and needs reviewing and talk of flights being restricted after 11.00pm. This is late for a residential area and is apparently not guaranteed to be applicable to all flights.
We need guarantees about these matters and sensitive consideration of the needs of present residents before the plans go any further.
Please address these matters.

I write to OBJECT to the above extension. It would seem that someone somewhere is determined to carry this out regardless of the effect it would have on the surrounding areas. It is necessary to prevent the increased noise, air pollution and traffic which would accompany this extension, and attempt to preserve the increased noise, air pollution and traffic which would accompany this extension, and attempt to preserve the quality of life of local residents which could be ruined, especially if it is intended to transport large quantities of freight as has been suggested. Therefore I say no to the proposal, and ask for those responsible to think again!