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

I object to the expansion of Southend Airport as this will mean planes low over our houses every 5 minutes at busy times, up to 30 noisy freight flights a night . A huge increase in noise and air pollution and more traffic on our congested roads. A number of people will lose their homes in the area. The value of people's homes will fall, putting even more people into negative equity. I feel there will be very few new jobs created as well as an increase in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. I therefore strongly object to the expansion.

I object to unnecessary development of green belt land, more cars being on the road; more roads being built and added polution from more plans flying overhead.

I object to all the proposals regarding the London Southend Airport and associated plans. I particualrly want to emphasis that I do not wish the runway to be extended in line with the current proposals or any other.

I object to all the proposals regarding the London Southend Airport and associated plans. I particualrly want to emphasis that I do not wish the runway to be extended in line with the current proposals or any other.

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

See earlier comments regarding noise and air pollution

support

I object for environmental reasons as already stated, not to mention the ongoing inconvenience that these developments will cause local people.

I see no need to develop this area. There already exists sufficient empty industrial sites within the borough's other industrial estates. Nowhere in any part of this document are there proposals to improve road infrastructure outside the JAAP area. Everything must enter and leave via the A127 which is already over capacity.

PWCC objects to this proposal

PWCC objects to this proposal

I object on the grounds of loss of greenbelt, increased road traffic, congestion, pollution.

I totally object to the implication that this policy depends on the extension of the airport runway.

We do not need another business park. We need to keep green belt and fresh air.

I do not see the need for any future expansion of the airport it would be unsustainable given the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions

I do not see the need for any future expansion of the airport it would be unsustainable given the the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions

Park not needed.

I object on the grounds of loss of greenbelt, increased road traffic, congestion, pollution.

I object on the grounds of loss of greenbelt, increased road traffic, congestion, pollution.

I object to all the different aspects of Southend Airport expansion. I especially do not want increased noise, night flight disturbance, pollution, traffic congestion, CO2 emissions and the destruction of the quality of life for residents. Also I believe that the people of both Southend and Rochford have not received accurate and truthful information. I also object on the grounds of loss of living in a peaceful environment, the loss of greenbelt, the increased road traffic, congestion, pollution, etc.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and locality on account of the sizeable and indisputable increase in aircraft noise, air pollution and road traffic. As a resident caught beneath flight paths, this will significantly damage my quality of life and devalue house prices.
JAPP provides paltry evidence that expansion will coincide with economic prosperity, indeed even the employment opportunities quoted relate almost wholly to Saxon Park - jobs merely transferred from Eldon Way.
The designated green spaces are inadequate; the meagre network of walk/cycle routes a preposterous sweetener.
In this economic climate, the development is irresponsible.

Fully support

The proposals

1. are ill conceived, with dramatic lack of properly evaluated evidence contrasted with hypothesis presented as fact
2. result in unacceptable loss of green belt
3. fail to reflect other transport infrastructure effects, particularly inadequate road provision and impact on other rail users
4. ignore the Nottingham Declaration
5. represent gross over development
6. result in unacceptable levels of air, noise, water and light pollution
7. are certain to have a detrimental effect on property values
8. will have an insignificant effect on local employment
9. fail to properly evaluate the necessary Public Safety Zone
10. will adversely affect public health, through breathing noxious fumes and the stress of disturbed sleep from such excessive night flights.

Comments and Objections
The regeneration of London Southend Airport cannot be achieved by building a business park. Nor does a business park depend upon the extension of the runway.
Set out specific standards which will be applied to the area. Standards of what, exactly? - behaviour? - building control? - road width? - signage?
The JAAP takes into account the impact of the proposals on other parts of Southend Borough Council areas, I don't think it does, there are at least 60,000 people and pupils in 10 schools likely to be adversely affected by increasing the flight capacity of the airport. Some of the aircraft may well be quieter than others, but there is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane. The higher a plane goes on take-off, by using a longer runway and a steeper ascent, the wider the 'noise footprint' will be. Surely that is a matter of basic physics. To attain the greater speed on the runway, the number of revs will increase, creating greater ground noise than at present. Also, as one aircraft is taking off, another will be preparing for take-off at peak times, a constant noise for all the houses around the take-off area.'Impact on...the existing built environment...' A possible 6 houses demolished for the runway to Eastwoodbury Lane and the brickfield cottages on Cherry Orchard Lane demolished for the business park. '...including listed buildings.' The church of St Laurence is a Grade One listed building, accepted by the CAA as a hazard. It is in constant use. The vibration caused by aircraft movements could surely endanger this beautful old church. The (admittedly remote) chance that a plane could strike the church and 130 worshippers must also be considered.
The 'Issues and Options' report was quietly introduced in the summer of 2008. It was not trumpeted loudly, but hidden in a website backwater for comments from those that could find it.
'The feedback...has been carefully considered and used'. The analysis was published in March 2009. When SAEN queried the statement on the penultimate page of the document, 'most respondents did not favour the high-growth option, they were told that 'this is not a referendum; it is a consultation'. So it would seem that views were asked for and then ignored. No wonder people say that the whole thing is a foregone conclusion!
'The economic benefits of the expansion in air travel' should be re-examined in the light of falling figures relating to air travel. The only airline operating regularly from Southend Airport has already gone into liquidation last winter - a victim of the credit crunch, not a victim of a runway that was too short.
The growing pressure on airports in the South-East is a pressure generated by the huge success of Stansted airport as a passenger terminal. Stansted is one hour away from Southend on the X30 bus; a comfortable journey with room for your luggage also, and a frequent service from the town.
Another pressure will be that the London Southend Airport has to consider that a drop-off point is now not to be too near a terminal building and other forms of security need to be addressed. There may be a 6 foot fence on the southern boundary, but a footpath that actually crosses the disused short runway to the north would have to be considered a security threat.
'Significant job opportunities' is a statement which must be challenged. There will not be any significant job opportunities connected to the airport until the airport starts to cater for millions of passengers. The jobs referred to in the booklet will almost exclusively provided by units in the Saxon Business Park. 'The Region's competitve strength and attractiveness as a business location and tourism destination.' Before Southend sees itself as a business location or a tourism destination, it needs to take a long hard look at what it does want to be. For some decades now. Southend Borough Council has been drying to ignore the fact that it is a seaside town. It is not a centre of things, it is on the coast. It is already well served by two rail lines for those who wish to come to the beach. It is only safe to swim when the tide is coming in (which it does twice a day), not when it is going out. When the tide is out, what should the visitor do? Visit the Pier? Why? There hasn't been enough cash in the kitty for years to develop the pier into a going concern, mostly due to an overspend on expensive consultants and lack of competent decision making. Visit the penny arcades, the pubs the shopping centre, visit Leigh and buy cockles go to the fun fair? Yes, but the airport is 3 miles away from all that, so after your flight, you will need a bus, (there are still a few left still running) or a taxi to the seaside. On the way, you may pass the remains of the Ecko site, the town's once-huge industry, or you pay pass the muli-storey buildings in Victoria Avenue, now derelict and unused, no longer the centres of commerce that they once were.
So, before Southend Borough Council addresses the question of the airport, which is 90% in Rochford anyway, perhaps they should expend a little effort, time and money considering the town's identity - you cant ignore the fact that it is a seaside town; commerce has failed hugely and manufacture is not what it once was, probably due to European influence and computer networking.
How does the local policy framework foresee Southend airport acting as a key driver for economic development? There is not enough detail given in the document.
With expansion of the airport'... issues of congestion and accessibility in and around the JAAP area...need to be addressed. And it will all have to be done at the same time. Public accounts of any difficulties experienced whilst getting to the airport are more than likely to be negative. People accept the good inherent in things but complain loudly when they are confronted by obstacles!
'Local policies support the growth of the airport' but local opinion, whilst largely embracing the airport as it is at present, is not generally in favour of the extension. The MRO sector should be safeguarded. However as the number of passengers increases towards 2 million, as proposed, the opportunity to test planes on the runway will necessarily decrease, pushing these older, noisier planes into times when passenger movements are less, that is to say, evenings and night times.
I object to the wording in this paragraph because it implies that London Southend Airport will be providing significant employment opportunities, when the facts are that the employment opportunities will arise when the Saxon Business Park is completed. Even then, there are several respondents to SAEN who understand that the jobs are not being created, but for the most part are jobs which will move from Hockley, where a number of business properties are to be demolished and moved to Rochford as part of the Hockley Area Action Plan.
Development of the airport...will not start delivering jobs until passengers exceed one million. Statistics collected from other airports will corroborate this; there are already enough people employed directly by the airport to cater for the first million people through the doors.
'...a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings...' Since nine-tenths of the land within the airport belongs to Rochford to what buildings does this part of the document refer? Buildings which stand directly opposite Southend's Council Offices have been neglected, run-down and empty for years. Given the constrains of budget, surely they should look closer to home to invest the taxpayer's money.
'...growth on London Southend Airport...attracts high technology businesses' - if the businesses are going next to the airport, why does this imply that the airport has to grow in order for the businesses to succeed. I object to the misleading way this paragraph has been written.
'...sustainable and high value employment' is a meaningless phrase to the layman. I object to this phrase as misleading 'spin'.
'...Passengers will travel on quiet, fuel efficient lanes...'There is no such thing as a quiet aeroplane! there are planes that are quieter than they were in the past, but it will take a very long time for airlines to ensure that all their aircraft are quieter than those they presently use. It would be too expensive for them to ditch the aircraft, until they have finished their natural life, which could be upto to 30 years. As to fuel efficiency, 'peak oil' may already have been reached so fuel efficient or not, prices will soon begin to rise again and put most flights beyond the reach of the man on the street. Why not reconsider the phrase 'quiet, fuel efficient plane's when they are quiet and fuel efficient, running on solar power?
The penultimate sentence seems to contradict itself:-'...the runway extension is a key factor in...aeroplanes (which) can take off in shorter distances.' If the planes take off in shorter distances, they do not need a longer runway! Or could it be that, because of the proximity of the railway line, the planes need to make a landing further away from the Rochford end of the railway, transferring the nuisance to the Southend end of the runway.
The MRO should be allowed to continue, but surely if passenger numbers are allowed to increase, the time available for landing, testing and take-off will be severely limited due to the number of passenger flights. Will this facility be moved to evenings and nights?'...there will be restrictions on night flights through a noise quota system.' That is good news! Why was the actual number for the quota not quoted here?
The Saxon Business Park could be good news. Common speculation, tying in the Hockley Action Plan with the Southend/Rochford Plan would indicate that many of the jobs will actually be moving from Hockley to the new site, along with some of the units that will be cleared to make way for other development, But I am sure there will be some new jobs created.
'...a new route will have been provided from Nestuda Way...etc'. The words make this sound like simplicity itself. Living here will not be simple for a very long time. The current runway and the proposed entension are over the place where the village of Eastwood once stood. Archaeological surveys will have to be done before work is carried out, local opinioin must be satisfied before work is carried out, explanations to those east of the church as to how they may obtain access to the church and churchyard will have to be given and the necessary funding found for the job. these are just a few of the obstacles in the way of progress with the extension of the runway. And yet here it is dismissed in a few simple words.
It is impossible to equate 2012 with the figure of 1 million passengers given the promises in the previous section. The quiet fuel efficient planes will not be in place entirely,the longer runway will not be in place, the infrastructure (i.e crowded roads, particularly Progress Road, Sadlers Farm will not have been addressed, since there is not enough time in 3 years to address all these things. At present there is not an airline lined up which is to provide a passenger service. They will surely not rely on promises, they have a business to run!
'The preferred option' as selected by joint councils is not the one chosen by the respondents to the first part of this consultation. On the penultimate page of the summary of responses, it is stated that the high-growth scenario was not favoured by the majority. When this was questioned by members of SAEN and other unrelated individuals, the response was that 'this is not a referendum, it is a consultation!' So the statements on many lips - 'Well the council will do what they like!' and 'It's only a paper exercise - it's a foregone conclusion!' may well be correct. Our views have not been taken into consideration so far, and there is no reason to think that we will be considered in this round, either. '...aircraft...fully laden...'must present more of a danger for the residents of the Mendip Estate, to the south-west of the runway. We cannot countenance a Lockerbie situation here in Westcliff. The houses are far too close to the runway now, before an extension is granted. Southend Council has allowed building to take place right up to the outskirts of the airport boundary over the last few years; this includes an enormous Tesco store and the huge building of the Royal bank of Scotland - landing and take-off procedures leave very little margin for error with so many people in the vicinity.
The promise of 6,200 jobs is a good one. It does not depend on the extension of the runway. It is however not clear what is meant by 'classes B1 and B2.'
'...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.'...'considering controls on airport operation to ensure quality of life is maintained for residents...minimise traffic impacts.' The way in which these measures are to be taken should be better described in this document; they are crucial to the quality of life of residents, old people and children being particularly vulnerable to noise and air pollutiion.
It is interesting to see that there are plans to improve public transport in Southend (or is it in Rochford?-it is not clear). Public transport has been in decline in Southend for some years, and it is apparent that the planning office has no idea how to deal with it all. There are current plans to demolish a multi-storey car park in the centre of Southend and replace it with a library for the university students. Yet alongside that, there seem to be no plans to improve access to the centre of the town by public transport.
It is not clear whether the Brickwork's cottages are to remain as part of an industrial area or whether they are intended for demolition.
Taking agricultural land for business and employment activity might seem a little unwise, Southend has already run out of agricultural land, and it now seems as if Rochford wants to go the same way. Has the term 'Green Belt' become so abused that it no longer means 'land that is green and cannot be built on'?
This is already a green lung and should remain so. Will there be any safeguards to stop this area becoming the next stage of development?
It is not clear whether this is meant as a compulsory purchase option! Were the current businesses asked for their views.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currently well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
The flying Clubs have been the core of the airport activity for a very long time, training pilots and ensuring sustainability - will they be given a new area from which to function.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today!
The Park and Ride facility would be on a good place to commute to Southend by bus, if it were not for the fact that it is right under the flight path. Is it legal to have a bus stop within the Safety Zone.
'...sustainable drainage...'. It is not clear what is meant by this term. There are problems of drainage already in the Southend Road; during wet weather the Horse and Groom public house is frequently overwhelmed by water. Is there a guarantee that the situation will not worsen and that water will be drained off into the correct direction? There must be some sort of ruling governing the safety issues of rain/large areas of tarmac. Have these been fully investigated, and do we have assurances?
This data implies that there will be 1180 jobs directly related to the airport. Research into previous claims for directly-related airport jobs has proved that these predictions are grossly inflated. When 2 million passengers go through, there may be direct jobs for 100 people, but 1000 has to be seen as an optimistic exaggeration.
It is encouraging to see that there are to be new walking/cycling routes incorporated into the JAAP.
The brickwork cottages are now unique and should be preserved as part of the brickfield development in Essex over many hundreds of years.
An impressive entrance will make no difference to the quality of what goes on in the business park.
'...the business park will need to...deliver a visual presence to the A127.' It is not clear what is meant by this statement.
'Expansion is...only acceptable if...subject to environmental constraints...' Expansion plans were vetoed in the Nineteen-sixties because it was not environmentally viable. What can possibly have changed since then?
A baseline of noise levels can be set anywhere and it does not appear to be in the power of the local authority to set this baseline or to object to it after it is implemented. A Noise Evaluation Statement is just that. It does not promise to do anything about it. There are at least 60,000 people living under the flight path and they are the ones who can evaluate the noise levels for you. Heavy aircraft taking off or landing at night have not been a feature whilst the JAAP is in the balance, but as soon as the consultation is over, it is entirely possible that these will resume. Added to the daytime flights interrupting the sleep of night workers and the work of children in ten schools directly under the flight path, the noise levels will become an intolerable burden.
The added CO2 in the atmosphere is not easy to offsett given the limited amount of green space within the borough of Southend, school green areas having been sold off and built upon and former agricultural land now being seen as business parks. So the quality of life for all these people will be sadly reduced. Not to mention the prices of their houses falling, because no-one in their right mind will want to live close to an expanding airport.
There is currently opposition to expansion of airports within the Government and Opposition benches. Is it hoped that all this permission for the Rochford/Southend JAAP will slip under the wire before it becomes law to limit the use of airports.
(see London Southend Airport Introduction (para 3)
Why is there no printed plan yet available for the PSZ if and when the runway is extended? Will this entail further disruption and compulsory purchase?
'The airport operator will be required to...make a contribution towards construction...'what percentage of this will the operator be expected to pay. It does not seem fair that the public should be expected to pay anything towards these changes; why not ask the operator to pay for the lot. Southend taxpayers can not expect to get anything out of the proposals except noise, disruption and poor air quality. Is it fair to ask them to pay anything towards the cost of local taxes?
The hours of predicted air travel are far too wide. Children whose sleep patterns are likely to be affected by flights will be in bed by 8pm and that is when the flights should stop. We should not be accepting flights from London City Airport either. It is simply another way of raising income for the operator and does not benefit the town.
The closure of Eastwoodbury Lane and the provision of a new road will mean that all the traffic that currently uses the Lane as a back way in to Southend will have to travel along the A127 or Nestuda Way. It will add about a mile to the journey into Southend, so most people will not turn in to the new road but will attempt to continue their journey along the A127, putting intolerable strain on the junction at the Bell and Rochford Road junction. There will be more traffic movements also, connected with the new jobs planned for the Saxon Business Park. The current infrastructure is bulging with overuse and really cannot take any more. the proposed Park and Ride can take only a little of the traffic away. And if it is intended for long term use for the airport, it will be of no use to the daily commuter.
What time span is this to take? And surely this is the same piece of road - why is it taking two separate policies.
It is not clear why a new junction will be required at Aviation Way and Eastwoodbury Lane - there is already an adequate roundabout there.
It is noted that improvements in public transport are needed within the JAAP. They are needed throughout Southend in many areas not covered by The JAAP also.
I note with dismay that a Green Belt is not what it was designed to. It should not provide flexibility...to accomodate growth. It should provide a barrier between urban and rural areas that is sacrosanct and inviolable.
This is already an open space and provides a lovely green area which is currenty well used. Redirecting Eastwoodbury Lane is going to devastate the area so that no one will want to use it as a public park.
It is good to know that this is to be another green buffer. And good to know that the powers that be are capable of changing their minds. A couple of years ago, the plan was to make this into a car park. No-one is fooled by this apparent charitable act today.
'The success will be limited if, etc.' For whom?

Following receipt of information concerning the proposed extension to the runway at Southend Airport and the plans to increase the size of aircraft and the number of passengers to 2 million/yr together with an undisclosed increase in freight traffic both during the day and night.

I wish to register the fact that I am horrified at the prospect of so many planes landing and taking off. I have lived under the flight path into the airport for 30 years safe in the knowledge that Southend Airport can never be expanded because of a central government inspectorate ruling in 1966, which prohibited the plans to extend the NW runway on environmental grounds.

2 million passengers a year means an average of 3 planes an hour (assuming each plane is carrying 150 passengers) taking off or landing during every day of the year - not to mention the undisclosed plans for increasing freight traffic and night flights. When a large plane takes off or lands today over my address the windows rattle and the television goes wonkey and we cannot hear ourselves speak especially if we are in the garden.

For this to occur every 20 minutes of every hour of every day is TOTALLY unacceptable and even more so for the people and schools nearer to the airport. The 'noise' zone shown in the literature is computer generated and must be inaccurate otherwise we would be unable to hear some planes today (this is not the case)! When the runway is extended and the planes get bigger, nearer and lower then the noise and pollution will be intolerable.

At the NE end of the runway the noise stops abruptly just past the railway line and the road...how can this be? Are there NO take off or landings to the north-east?

I do not believe that the benefits to the area would out way the massive increase in noise and air pollution from aircraft and cars and trucks.

Despite the new station, which seems to be already under construction, the increase in truck and car traffic would be something like 4000 more per day, how is our already grid locked road system going to cope?

The ONLY viable way in and out of Southend Airport by road is via the A127! Central government has ruled out any real improvement to the A12, so there is no hope of the A127 becoming a motorway AND who would want that? It would be a motorway only going to Southend, when you get there youhave to turn round and go back the way you came.

The idea that the new station seems to me to be somewhat flawed because it really only serves passengers living on the Liverpool St line and they are the ones who can most easily access Stansted Airport easily via Liverpool St station.

As for the new industrial units, any new industry or offices on designated greenbelt land makes a mockery of designating it so in the first place. The proposals to provide green buffer zones and 'lungs' will not make up for the damage to the environment. And the idea that people will want to cycle and walk there does not seem to be likely - a few plane spooters maybe! I cannot understand why it is believed that we need more business parks and units when there are so many empty business premises in the area.

I cannot see any reason why Southend Airport needs to be expanded in this way. Stansted Airport will always offer far more choice of destinations and is easily accessed by road and rail. I think the proposals on this scale will have a huge negative impact on Leigh-on-Sea making it less attractive to visitors with associated job losses.

Have Southend and Rochford Councils calculated the number of households and schools under the flight path that will be directly affected? I have made 'representations' to Southend and Rochford Councils using their online facility.

Leigh-on-Sea Town Council does NOT support an extended runway proposal so I trust that their views, as well as many others, and mine will be taken into serious consideration.

If extending a runway in 1966 was refused on environmental grounds in 1966 - how much more important is that today!

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

The following representations on the above mentioned plan are made on behalf of
Hanson Building Products Limited.

Employment Al locations

Policy E1: General Development Considerations - the general proposal to develop the JAAP area as a strategic employment area is supported. Preferred Option 2 which advocates the pursuit of high scale employment growth that will make a significant contribution towards regional employment aspirations is also suppofted.

Policy E3: Saxon Business Park - the identification of employment Area 1A for 81
uses is supported.

Policy E4: Phasing of Saxon Business Park - the identification of Area 1A as the first phase of development within the business park is supported.

Policy E5: Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park and Policy T3: Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way these policies identify a requirement to upgrade Cherry Orchard Way to dual carriageway standard; the need to provide access to the business park, the need to provide the initial section of a new estate road and provision of a green corridor.

The policies and suppofting text provide very little information on the mechanisms for delivery of site infrastructure works or the contributions individual developers will be expected to make towards them. As any new access junction into the Saxon Business Park will have to be designed from the outset to accommodate the future dualling of Cherry Orchard Way and the new estate road will similarly have to be
designed to accommodate future traffic volumes anticipated from the business park
when it is fully developed, they are inevitably going to be of a higher specification than would be needed solely to service Area 1A. It would be unreasonable for Area 1A to have to bear the burden of these increased costs.

Whilst it is accepted that the specifics of site infrastructure works are not defined at
this stage, in order to provide clarity and ceftainty to potential developers on the
likely scale of these costs, the policies and/or suppofting text should include more
detail on the anticipated contribution each phase is expected to make to site infrastructure costs and the mechanisms for calculating it. For example, the plan should confirm whether contributions will be by means of physical works, financial contributions to a communal pot or a combination of the two. The plan should also
indicate how costs will apportioned, whether by means of site area/likely usage etc and confirm what, if any, contribution is expected to be made from the public purse and whether there are any timing issues associated with this.