Policy E8 - Nestuda Way Business Park

Object

Representation ID: 4512

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: mr jonathan Wood

i cannot see any benefit of a new business park in this area, surely the amount of units available nearby plus the proposed expansions in nearby aviation way are adequate. this area already has too much traffic at busy times.

Object

Representation ID: 4639

Received: 22/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

how are all these extra people going to get to the area with the roads full to bursting at the moment,there is nowhere to go.

Object

Representation ID: 4819

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

What does " a visual presence to the A127" mean? It could mean a blot on the landscape.
Again this policy is inprecise about the requirement to provide public transport and walking and cycling facilities. It uses the word "expected". This can only mean that these items are optional and will have to be paid for by the tax payer if the developers don't fancy financing them. This is no policy at all. It is a capitulation to business.

Object

Representation ID: 5008

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

Road infrastructure unable to support this development without considerable distruption
to residents.

Object

Representation ID: 5176

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5309

Received: 19/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Moss

It is illogical and undesirable to nominate an area of B1 business immediately under the flight path.It would be impossible for the workforce and place them in an area of danger.

Object

Representation ID: 5330

Received: 19/03/2009

Respondent: Mr terence white

Have you identified companies and related job opportunities.

Support

Representation ID: 5411

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

this is a good site for a prestige busness park and the building should be well designed and classy

Object

Representation ID: 5504

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Davis

This in no doubt will be turned into retail units and put pressure onto the existing retailers.

Again the same objection about increased traffic as below:


The local roads will not cope with additional traffic. The roundabout at Warners Bridge is testament to this. During the weekend just a few cars trying to access the Airport retail park cause jams aand congestion. This increased workforce would cause yet traffic congestion during the morning and evenings. Then with addtional passengers using the aiport this would cause even further congestion

Object

Representation ID: 5523

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

just what is meant by 'a visual presence'? and if by some quirk all the new units are filled just how are people expected to get there on an already too busy road with an extra 2 million holiday makers using it too? And are people really going to want to walk and cycle under the direct flight path?

Support

Representation ID: 5562

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: London Southend Airport

As with policy E3, this should note Policy T6 as well as T7 and T8.

Object

Representation ID: 5608

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: natalie mcallister

There is no substance to the employment strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 5712

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5773

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Gemma Cudlipp

Who is going to want to walk and cycle within such close proximity to an airport. Please don't 'spin' this, at least have the decency to be honest and admit that this airport expansion would be a terrible thing for local residents. Second to the worry I feel about how awful the expansion would be in respect of noise and environmental pollution, comes anger at the dishonesty of the people behind these proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 5822

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

I am not convinced of the wisdom of this particular proposal, it could overdevelop that particular area, especially with the extra traffic flows caused by re-routeing of Eastwoodbury Lane etc.

Object

Representation ID: 5995

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: 6050

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: 6078

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: 6103

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

what does visual presence to the A127 mean? The plans are very unclear. How many business parks do we need? where does the figure of 500 jobs come from? Can the airport supply as with names of all these companies that are CREATING new jobs and are not just simply moving from one area to another

Object

Representation ID: 6164

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Jon Spencer

Is this another business park, what does visual presence of the A127 mean. Plans are very unclear more detail is required

Object

Representation ID: 6317

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: dave willats

as someone who uses this road daily how many more companys will come to southend for there work force to sit in traffic , roads around this area cant coupe with what we have !!!!!!!!!!!!

Object

Representation ID: 6483

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: 6563

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: 6640

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6641

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6751

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: 6906

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Carson

Any expansion of Industrial areas South East of the airport must include protection for residents in nearby roads from increased traffic and pollution including light pollution. I am a resident of Whitehouse Road Eastwood and am very concerned that traffic levels and light pollution levels will become intollerable from increased industrial activity near the airport.

Object

Representation ID: 6923

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: 7076

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: MS Samantha Lierens

Again, talk of 'delivering 500 jobs'. What jobs? Can they not be more specific?
'Low-cost' operators, like Ryanair and easyJet - the model the industry is moving towards - encourage passengers to check in online instead of at the terminal to cut down on the number of staff; new airport capacity will further entrench this low-staffing model by automating baggage handling and check-in.
Aviation jobs are mostly low-paid, low-skilled and unstable; we need long-term, sustainable employment, not more McJobs in the aviation industry.

Object

Representation ID: 7136

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A James

If the business park was to be built we would need to be public transport provided to this area that at the moment is completely lacking.