6 Timetable - Your Views

Object

Representation ID: 10840

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Phillip Curson

We object to the expansion of this airport due to the devastating impact on the local residents and the environment generally. The increase in noise, traffic and pollution will have a negative effect for all people in the Southend and adjoining boroughs for generations to come. The local infrastructure will not have the capacity to cope with the increase in demand.
There are already several large airports nearby capable of meeting the needs of people who need to fly.
This proposal is not supportive of our commitment to reduce the carbon footprint.

Comment

Representation ID: 10912

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: Ms Sharon Allsop

How will items 4 and 5 of the timetable be implemented? Will there be ample opportunity for the public to review the final proposals and make their opinions known?
The wording seems to indicate that, provided it is approved by the Secretary of State, the JAAP will go ahead, whatever the contents. Surely that can't be the case?

Object

Representation ID: 11003

Received: 10/05/2009

Respondent: Claire Cockburn

This is one of the most badly structured and difficult to navigate documents I have seen. I work for the Home Office and am used to developing consultation documents. This one is awful. For such a major change for the town the lack of information in this document smacks of a 'confuse the public' policy. I do not think the administration will take any notice of the comments that people make and will just forge ahead. This consultation is a joke.

Object

Representation ID: 11238

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Postlethwaite

The consultation is inadequate with far too little evidence presented for the so called benefits with much of it being fanciful supposition of what the consequences might be.
The format is also likely to be open to challenge and the result will be the councils in expensive and fruitless defence of their flawed process.

Object

Representation ID: 11428

Received: 11/05/2009

Respondent: nanine pachy

I object to the expansion of Southend airport runway. I also think this is one of the most badly structured and difficult to navigate documents I have seen. There has been no other information available on how to put forward our objections. Those who don't have access to a computor are excluded from this process

Object

Representation ID: 11676

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Green Party

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

Support

Representation ID: 11923

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Davison

As long as the public are well publicised regarding the statutory consultation. Most of the people of Leigh did not get their circular until the extension of this current consultation - myself included

Object

Representation ID: 12208

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Peter Walker Chess Coachin

PWCC objects to this proposal

Object

Representation ID: 12485

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

Given the two extensions to the second-phase consultation deadline, it is clear that the timetable for step 3 onwards must be pushed back and Nigel Holdcroft tells me that the Pre-submission consultation will not happen before September. One expects the statutory consultation to request formal proofs of evidence from people rather than the entirely unsatisfactory method used in the current phase - making people cram their responses into 100 words. It is also vital that contributions to the current consultation are used to shape the submission document in exactly the way the first phase consultation failed to shape the second.

Support

Representation ID: 12549

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sally Clark

As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better that this is all carried out. The town is crying out for meaningful employment!

Object

Representation ID: 12595

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Brian Whistler

I object to this presumption that JAAP proposal will go ahead. The first consultation was badly managed but even though the majority of responses were against the High Growth scenario this is what JAAP have proposed now. Local democracy ?? Local councillors are keeping a low profile. The current consultation again has been badly managed. There needed to be a much easier way than the website for people to air their views. The Council's publications were devious in the way they were presented.

Object

Representation ID: 12621

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Julia Gower

Will our views really be taken into account? Residents weren't in favour of the fast-track option and this wasn't taken into account.Why would Eddie Stobart have bought the airport without some assurances from the Council - this consultation should have been carried out before the airport was put up for sale. Residents have many unanswered questions re flight paths, number of very noisy freight flights to be allowed both day and night - is it to be more a freight airport than a passenger airport given the close proximity to 4 other passenger airports?

Object

Representation ID: 12623

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Glen Lane

I object to the Running Freight or passenger flights over night. The noise level where we live is on occassion high at present, and we have no confidence that this will improve with the extension of the runway, and larger aircraft.
The light aircraft that continually run are of little concern, but it is too close to residential for anything larger. My children occassionally wake up very disturbed due to the noise even now, and this is likely to increase with your plans.

Support

Representation ID: 12756

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Andy Ley

My support is, however, subject to there being no increase in night-time flights and that adequate infrastructure is put in place to support any additional businesses that are attracted to the airport environs, most notably the road network in and around Rochford.

Object

Representation ID: 12881

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan West

How will items 4 and 5 of the timetable be implemented? Will there be ample opportunity for the public to review the final proposals and make their opinions known?
The wording seems to indicate that, provided it is approved by the Secretary of State, the JAAP will go ahead, whatever the contents. Surely that can't be the case?

Object

Representation ID: 13028

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: mr peter wardill

I am opposed to the expansion and endorse fully all of the anti-expansion views expressed in your forum. I think the expansion will be detrimental to the local environment and quality of life. It will result in an increase in aircraft and traffic noise as people travel far and wide to use the airport. The positive aspect of jobs and on business is far outweighed by the negative impact on the environment.

Object

Representation ID: 13060

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Ms Gillian Paskins

I have spent a lot of precious time researching, attending meetings, and trying to get my head around this. Do I think the process has been fair so far? No. The high development option would not be the preferred one if people had been listened to previously. Do I think people's comments on here will be taken note of? Sadly no. I think the council will say something like - Only 10% of the population responded so 90% agree.
I think our only hope is that the development plan is wrong and will get rejected further up the line.

Object

Representation ID: 13102

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr William O'Connor

The timescale from the end of the consultation on 15 May and Submission to the Secretary of State in July, having gone through the Submission Document and Pre Submission Consultation, seems a very short period of time.

I also wonder how much notice will be taken of the opinions which have been posted here.

Object

Representation ID: 13209

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Hudson

I OBJECT TO ALL AIRPORT EXPANSION.
NO NO NO.
SPEND THE MONEY ON GETTING SOUTHEND AND LOCAL TOWNS LOOKING GOOD! DEVELOPMENTS OF AREAS DO NOT NEED SUCH DRASTIC IMPLEMENTATIONS AS BUILDING OR EXPANDING AIRPORTS TO IMPROVE AREAS OR CREATE JOBS.
RIDICULOUS!
THINK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE'S LIVES, WELL BEING FOR A CHANGE!

Object

Representation ID: 13248

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: mrs c prosser

I feel that the overall disruption to the area would not be acceptable. The planned routes for the extra traffic would mean that the already conjested roads would become impassable.

Object

Representation ID: 13321

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Postlethwaite

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.

Object

Representation ID: 13331

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Postlethwaite

The entire process is ill-considered and fails to consider properly the needs and wishes of the residents of the electorate. The proposals will result in excessive pollution in many forms, overstate limited economic benefits and ignore the reality of falling air traffic at other regional airports. The runway extension is not long enough to accommodate the less noisy modern passenger jets at full payload being only a smokescreen to get in noisy polluting cargo flights all through the night.

Object

Representation ID: 13332

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: Miss Cheryl Williams

I would like to raise my and my parents objection to the proposed expansion of London Southend Airport.
Having lived with my parents at my present address for 44 years,being under the flight path is not problematic.
However if this proposal should go ahead,I can foresee it being detrimental to our quality of life,due to the increase in flights and type of aircraft.
Our road having direct access to the A127,already has a traffic problem which would only get worse,not to mention the the effect to A127 traffic flow.
To councillors wearing their rose-tinted glasses, VOTE "NO!" to London Southend Airport expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 14409

Received: 11/05/2009

Respondent: Mr P Smith

Until I read my neighbours letter from your office I knew nothing of this JAAP report and I was told by your colleague this was because I am not on your mailing list.

I am extremely concerned about this because many more residents of this borough don't know either. Southend Council sent some leaflets out but barely enough to cater for everybody. I didn't get one and I live next to the Anne Boleyn pub and you don't get much nearer to the airport than that.

I believe this report has been kept very quiet because very few residents in my area even know it exists let alone make any representations about it. I think all of the residents in this borough should have been sent a copy of this report freely and had the opportunity to study it before passing judgement on it. Eddie Stobart could have paid for this out of all of the profits he is about to make. I would like to know how many of the Councillors who voted for this actually live anywhere near the airport. I am sure that none of them have big jets flying over their property as we do. I would also like to know how after the vote went against them the council has still proceeded with these plans.

It's obvious that the vast majority of local residents are against them. These are the same local residents who have not been freely kept informed because like me they don't happen to be on this councils mailing list.