5. Implementation, Delivery and Monitoring

No mention is made of the new hotel or re-siting of the control tower.
Ther are several hotels near the Airport already. I cannot see the need for another.
The re-siting of the contorl tower is essential bearing in mind the limited view afforded by its present locstion.

Why do we need another airport in the middle of a residential area? We have three major airports plus City within 1-2 hours travel. Surely there should be alternative plans considered for this site.

Southend has many elderly people who would benefit from having a close airport for holidays. Hopefully this will be achieved in their lifetimes.

Obviously with the expected increased number of passengers, new businesses, extended MRO as well as a hotel the traffic in the surrounding area will increase substantially. A high proportion of this traffic will enter and exit via the A127 and then Nestuda Way / Eastwoodbury Lane. It will be essential that A 127 flow/capacity is improved at the Tesco roundabout, Kent Elms Corner and Progress Road without causing congestion in the minor roads feeding it at these points. This does not appear to be addressed in these proposals. Without this will operators and businesses be attracted?

5.1 correctly states that the entire development plan can only be successful if it is managed and delivered as a whole. As noted above, policies which only outline expectations rather than requirements are unlikely to succeed. Similarly, accumulated annual reports by different authorities cannot efficiently drive such a project. Only a single body continuously monitoring and co-ordinating progress can hope to succeed. Divided responsibilities, and expectations rather than requirements is a receipe for developers to avoid their obligations to the public and the environment.

The outlined plans cannot possibly hope to succeed, because southend airport is so poorly sited. Not only does the runway point straight at a densly populated residential area (on which the impact will be enormous), but there quite simply isn't the room to implement the required infrasturcture. Any extension to the runway should be viewed as inconceivable, this idea would cut the distance between the end of the runway and the houses down to a third of its current distance. This will be far too noisy for those living in the estate, regardless of the planes age / design.

Delivery of the first consultation phase was inexplicably delayed by 3.5 months(3/11/08-16/2/09)for analysis and gave a high growth preferred option in contradiction of the democratic majority vote.The new schedule allows barely a fortnight to complete the analysis of the pre-submission consultation delayed from the original close date of 20/4/09 until 'July'. Another 'consultation' right in the middle of the holiday period with a pre-determined result.Who will see the annual monitoring reports judging the success of the plan?Sub- committees should be set up involving the public to monitor noise, congestion, pollution etc.

Everything suggested indicates a huge amount of building, an increase in traffic and noise. The developments all will mean our area would be insufferably congested, with the pressure on local facilities beyond breaking point. We will lose beautiful views and amenity because of overcrowding. It is horrendous to think of this congestion both on the ground and in the air. Awful!

Expansion of airport, surrounding area & extension of the runway will have a hugely detrimental impact on peoples' lives living in this densly populated area. I do not agree with the statement 5.2 'realistic/capable of delivery'. I fear, in light of the ruling against Stanstead expansion protesters & Heathrow's third runway approval, this totally unsuitable expansion in a totally unsuitable location will go ahead REGARDLESS of the many sensible objections noted on these pages. Obviously Southend Council & Stobart have the 2012 Olympics in their sights as a springboard for their proposal. 'London' Southend Airport?

Southend airport has lay semi-dormant for many years now and although expansion within reasonable limits would be welcomed e.g. no more than 10 flighta a day. Certainly the mention of night flights is concerning and totally unacceptable. there is no logical need for such flights and will cause misery to thousands of residents.

I dont think this represents fully the views of residents. How do I know you're not going to interpret the results to fit in with your aims? I am writing to David Amess to object to this expansion and would urge others to do so too.

shame about current economic situation but could play for thisw in a few years time. will need support to get it going given all the requirements for funding being placed on it. might be better for Government to give funding direct to councils for all the improvements, paerks, roads etc and let the development proceed unencumbered.

Many years of talks and very little action we need the airport to be a working one with flights for the public to europe.
The airport has been here for many years and operated well just about for the last 30 years, if you moved to the area of the flightpath or airport in the last 20 years learn to live with it.after all it was here 1st.
The Airport in the long run has to be greener than driving to LHR/LGW/STN . BRING IT ON

We shall be delighted if the success of this plan is VERY limited. Please develop one that your constituents support. WE are what this town is about, not some ill-conceived "grand plan".

these proposals are far from realistic and I object wholeheartedly to any expansion of the airport

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed implementation plan.

Hockley Parish Plan Group is generally in support of proposed airport growth and the development of new industrial and business units in the vicinity of the airport to provide economic benefits and employment opportunities, subject to the following considerations:

• All proposed new roads and road improvements, including A127, Eastwoodbury Lane and Cherry Orchard Way, are in place prior to airport growth (especially runway extension) and new business parks development
• Road improvements through Hockley and Hawkwell West (currently not included in the Preferred Options paper) are in place prior to airport growth and business parks development, as a significant percentage of passengers and workers will use Hockley as a through route to the airport area. Many company and delivery vehicles will also travel through Hockley. Roads through Hockley are already congested and will be gridlocked following both airport growth and the proposed core strategy allocation of housing development in Rochford and Hawkwell
• All other infrastructure improvements, related to traffic, transportation (including public transport), and parking (staff, visitors, and incoming/ outgoing transportation) are in place prior to airport growth and business parks development. Planning restrictions to be approved and in place limiting on-site car parking to essential requirements only. All businesses, including the airport, to contribute to Travel Plans.
• A legally enforceable agreement on clearly defined and measurable noise and air pollution control measures is in place prior to any airport growth. Noise and air pollution must be controlled and monitored to achieve the agreed levels
• A legally enforceable agreement on clearly defined flight paths minimising impact on existing housing all around the airport is in place prior to airport growth. Clearly defined flight paths are not currently shown in the proposal and there is a concern for the residents of Hockley that the majority of planes flying north would veer after take off in the direction of Rochford District
• A legally enforceable agreement on clearly defined engine testing noise control measures is in place prior to airport growth. Engine testing to be restricted to clearly defined times of the day
• No passenger night flights
• A legally enforceable agreement on night flight quota for freight in terms of cargo, frequency and noise levels is in place prior to airport growth
• The type of industry is controlled so that new industry, inside the airport perimeter or on the business parks, is only given planning permission if air quality (in terms of fumes and smells) and noise measures do not exceed legislated levels
• The environmental impact related to the loss of greenbelt and open spaces is controlled and offset by provision of supplementary public open spaces in the vicinity

I object to increasing the length of the runway and I object to expansion of Southend Airport.

This expansion is inappropriate in such a densely populated residential area. The increased flight numbers will lead to increased noise levels, reduced air quality, and an increase in congestion on already-congested local roads. All this will have a negative impact on the lives, health and well-being of local residents.

So-called "quieter and more fuel-efficient" aircraft still generate significant noise and significant pollution. As flight numbers would increase due to expansion of the airport and the size of incoming aircraft would be larger due to lengthening of runway, so the total environment impact worsens.

The increased noise levels and reduced air quality will arise not just from the aircraft alone. It will arise also from the numerous freight lorries travelling to and from the airport to serve the extra incoming aircraft. Road links to Rochford and Southend are already congested. One can only be saddened at the prospect of yet more roads being built and those new roads themselves becoming congested, simply because of this elephant of an airport expansion.

Maybe this proposed airport expansion is a ploy to drive the local population away. Who would choose to live in such a noisy, polluted, congested area with large aircraft and lorries continually passing over and passing by? People needs job but I can't see that this proposed airport expansion would generate nearly enough jobs to compensate for the damage done to the local population.

5.2 says the plan is "realistic and capable of delivery" which is hardly surprising given the lack of constraints.

More worrying for future development of a realistic plan and controlled implementation is the apparent lack of a strong benefits management framework, or a commitment to develop one.

As far as I can see there's no upfront constraint on negative outcomes for residents. The necessary safeguards have yet to be defined and responsibility for ensuring they are in place is distributed across an impenetrable multi-layered bureaucratic process.

It should be possible to make some clear commitments in plain English before further developing this "option".

I object to this whole proposal and there appears to be a complete lack of understanding or consideration regarding public views, simply a white wash in order to make a quick profit (which is why we are currently in a global recession.) Where is the social responsibility for the long-term welfare of this area and its residents?

Expansion of airport, surrounding area & extension of the runway will have a hugely detrimental impact on peoples' lives living in this densly populated area and to the environment not to mention contributing to climate change. I do not agree with the statement 5.2 'realistic/capable of delivery'. If the expansion goes ahead it will be catastrophic - stop expansion now.

The negative certainties of this 'Masterplan' far outweigh the potentially - and unsupported - benefits to the local community. Pie-in-the-sky, considering all the factors. How much will this expansion cost residents? Financially, that is. We already know that it will cost us our health, sanity, schooling and future were it to go ahead. What else could be done with the money? Present the cases - made by an independent organisation - and let the people you're elected to represent vote on it.

I completely odject to the expansion. The airport is in the wrong place, the area is to built up

please southend council stop this airport from destroying thousands of locals lives.it will be hell on earth with all the new noise and traffic day and night.no one that i have spoken to wants it.

I strongly object to any expansion of Southend airport on the grounds of :-
1) Bad for the environment
2) We don't need another large airport when Stansted and Heathrow are already being expanded
3) Safety - the flight path is over one of the most densely populated areas in the country including many schools

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.

I strongly object to the preferred option chosen. It does not account for the destruction of the quality of lives of residents who live under or close the flightpath. It is not realistic, or deliverable if as stated it cares for the quality of life of residents,as these objectives cannot be met. Our quality of life will be destroyed if the 2 million passengers envisaged comes to fruition.

We strongly object to the proposed expansion of the airport. We also find this consultation process to be unacceptable - it has been barely publicised, is convoluted and appears to be a token request for opinions after decisions have already been taken.

Early implementation is essential for airlines and general aviaition operators to see that this is a serious proposal after so many false starts in the past. Let's get going!

I object to the proposed airport expansion. This consultation exercise looks deliberately low key and complex, to reduce the number of adverse comments. The airport is in the wrong place and too close to a very densely populated area. There would be more congestion on the roads, more overcrowding on the trains, increased noise and pollution day and night from the extra aircraft, increased danger of aircraft accidents, all reducing our quality of life.