Policy E5 - Development of Area 1A - Saxon Business Park

Support

Representation ID: 5003

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

Fully Support

Object

Representation ID: 5173

Received: 13/03/2009

Respondent: Mr B Jones

STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL EXPANSION. Do minimum or preferably no expansion.The increase in aircraft noise for us residents will become intolerable, emissions will increase. The road system cannot cope with current traffic levels. If 2m passenger movements are reached this will require about 4000 extra car journeys per day!!! Imagine the road upgrading work for the next few years that would be required. This area has a high percentage of elderly people who hardly fly. Who will the expansion benefit, people flying from outside the region and the business people and major shareholders who will make millions of pounds.

Support

Representation ID: 5408

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

yes but it must have relevance and be a quality building

Object

Representation ID: 5460

Received: 23/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

the number of jobs bandied about are only being moved from one so called business parks to this one, no extra jobs just moved, and there will be empty buildings else where

Object

Representation ID: 5480

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Gill Plackett

I am against the use of green belt land for any new business development, as there are a several business sites in Southend being raised to the ground that are near to the Airport and near to the A127. It is not necessary to build a new park next to the airport as many of the businesses that will move there will not be airport related. I note that airport related business will be on the actual airport site.

Object

Representation ID: 5511

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

probably for 'landmark building' read 'Tesco's" and 'entrance feature' - 'lorry park for Eddie Stobart'

Object

Representation ID: 5533

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: MR DOMINIQUE LEACH

object

Object

Representation ID: 5601

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Whitehead

All this talk of the proposed business parks, units etc. Extending the runway is not a precursor. All that is needed is a clear need for these business premises. If they do not stand up on their own, why are they being lumped into the Extension of the runway?. If they are /were needed, then just do it, there are so many empty units in Southend already. Do not con the populace into thinking the runway extension will provide these opportunities & jobs.

Object

Representation ID: 5709

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Allan Trower

This will have a negative on:-

1. Environment (noise and pollution)
2. Wildlife and greenbelt
3. Surrounding residential properties
4. Public Services (Health and Education)
5. Infrastructure (congestion)

I dont believe the sweetner on job creation given the current climate so dont be fooled by this one. I can't see many companies wanting to invest in this proposal.

Support

Representation ID: 5797

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

Cycle/Pedestrian pathway connectivity also needed to be planned and provided from the outset.

Support

Representation ID: 5872

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: MR JEREMY DAVENPORT

Alternative roads are essential for this development

Object

Representation ID: 5992

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

No case has been made for the need for these business units so, without demand, how can you supply?

Support

Representation ID: 6047

Received: 30/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Rick Jackson

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6077

Received: 30/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Martin Birch

Southend airport is in the wrong location for anything other than low growth. The roads are congested and the area is overcrowded. Expanding the airport will give rise to more noise and air pollution. A restriction on night flights should be enforced.

Object

Representation ID: 6100

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

would we not be taking more of the land away, to put another road through to go to unused office buildings. Once again I would ask can the airport supply us with company names that are going to fill all these units and airlines that are going to use southend to create all these wonderful jobs

Object

Representation ID: 6161

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Jon Spencer

object, we do not need anymore business parks, lets try filling the ones that already stand empty

Object

Representation ID: 6308

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: dave willats

please enlighten me on how many more business parks we need with no more roads available to copewith the traffic we already have

Object

Representation ID: 6418

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Greenwood

This is an uneconomical proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 6481

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: David Emery

No expansion of any airport in the last 25 years has resulted in the expected increase in job opportunities. Any figures quoted are inevitably inflated to make the whole expansion in some way palatable! I object to every single proposal. In addition the process of objection is over complicated, confusing, time-consuming and strongly suggests it has been designed to statistically weaken any single objection! Rochford council should be ashamed of themselves!

Object

Representation ID: 6560

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Brian Birnie

I feel let down already that work of some kind is in progress in the Southend Road location. It appears that a decision has been made by Rochford and Southend Councils already.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and the changes that are associated with it. This list is a few of the reasons.
Increased pollution. Increased traffic on roads already congested. Increased noise 24 hours no guarantee to limits. Reduction in house values as can already be seen just with the expansion proposals. Increase in freight flights these planes won't be quieter than newer style passenger planes.

Object

Representation ID: 6638

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns

Object

Representation ID: 6748

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr David Thomas

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6920

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: P Crawshaw

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.

Object

Representation ID: 7134

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A James

I believe there is no call for an additional business park which will mean areas of good farmland will lay dormant for future traveller invasions.

Object

Representation ID: 7306

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Kylie Heath

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.

Object

Representation ID: 7356

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Huband

Strong concerns re increasesd levels of traffic

Support

Representation ID: 7395

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: C and S Associates

Agent: Firstplan

With regard to area 1A, C and S Associates support the designation of the site for development. The Brickworks site is previously developed land and currently lies derelict and detracts from the surrounding landscape. Redevelopment will enhance the area and enable the clean up of the site which is likely to incur significant costs.

Object

Representation ID: 7580

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Gillard

I object to the proposed development because the sustainable transport measures take no account of the A127 which is unable to cope with any more traffic, be it from passengers (a smaller percentage of which will use the railway) or the expected extra employees at the new industrial areas.

Object

Representation ID: 7714

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Michael Powell

What evidence is there to prove there will be a demand for these industrial parks given that there are many empty business properties in the area

Object

Representation ID: 7871

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Ellen Maria O'Hara

Southend is an area which is already heavily built up. Where do the emergency landings take place? The air and noise pollution will be a total nightmare for existing residents. Where will all the traffic go? In 1966 the government refused the proposed expansion of runway 15/33 on environmental grounds - surely this argument is even stronger today - we are ALL aware of the environment problems surrounding this!