Issue 4

Strong objection. The A127 is already well know for it's daily jams and high accident rate, with the extra passenger and cargo traffic it will just not be able to cope at all. Add the extra time that will be taken by every A127 commuters together and it will far outweigh any possible financial gain from the airport. JAAP planners say their report only covers local area up to the A127, but they suggest that improvements to the A127 and a new route to the north east will be required but this is the Local Planning Authorities responsibility not theirs (they also say the same thing about noise, pollution and safety). For years and years we have been told nothing can be done to improve the A127 (due to surrounding structures) and the road to the north has been rejected so what can they do.

Congestion, congestion . congestion!

Obvious road development required to support scheme otherwise significant congestion.

If the airport extends, people will use their cars not trains with large suitcases and children, it just dosen't happen! As for the park & ride, I refer to my earlier objection regarding St Laurence Park!

The A127 is already seriously congested in both directions for most of the day and beyond.

There is no sense in expanding the airport until either fast new road access is provided in and out of Southend, or the A127 is made suitable by removing its limitations (only 4 lanes, traffic lights, important side road crossing points, roundabouts, and now the absurd 50mph limit which has recently been imposed to the west).

None of the London airports would be viable without a motorway link to the M25 - the same will prove true for Southend.

On the face of it this policy sounds good as long as the poor old motorist is not vilefied and made to suffer again as is the tradition in this country. Wholesale reducing of speed limits, extra speed cameras and speed humps are just measures to persecute the majority of law abiding motorists.

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

their is little benefit to the area of a larger airport, any expansion only benefits other areas and causes loss of environment, peace and lifestyle for residents

I object on the grounds of increased noise, pollution and traffic.

The roads are already congested. Even with additional road building the congestion will continue. New bottle necks will be created and more pollution of the air generated.

More traffic. More road works. More queues. The word SATURATION comes to mind.

Tax payers money being used again to fund expansion of roads just for the benefit of allowing the expansion of an airport to allow planes to devalue my home and wake me up in the night - no thank you.

Using Gatwick and Standsted as models, reducing car bourne traffic is a non starter. The only thing increasing at these airports is the size of the car parks. The airport authority obviously encouraging car traffic as parking generates substantial amounts of income, whereas bus and rail passengers generate no income for them. If you stipulated that the airport could not have any long term parking, passengers would only be able to be dropped off or use buses and trains. I think I can guess what the reaction would be. What % of passengers at Stansted travel by public transport?

The various road developments within the JAAP area will do nothing to resolve the frequent congestion occurring on the A127 entering the town from the west. Despite the new railway station sited at the airport many potential air passengers will wish to travel by car. Gatwick also has rail links to London yet millions choose to use their cars, but Gatwick has the proximity of a motorway, Southend has not.

since Court Line collapsed in the 1970's it has not attracted consistent use by low cost air carriers like Easy Jet or Ryan Air and in the current economic climate its unlikely that these type of air carriers would consider running a service from a small regional airport like Southend in comparison to Stanstead or Gatwick. If there is such a need why aren't these companies already using Southend in its current limited capacity? They do not use it because they do not need its capacity. The air transport industry globally is reducing its current capacity.

No No No - i can not see how the introduction of more traffic management schemes will improve the drivers lot in southend and the A127 - next we will have bus lanes and local people will have a nightmare time getting around - STOP DEVELOPING SOUTHEND, put money into improving the quality of what we have not bringing in improvements on the back of further development, more people, more traffic, more congestion. same roads!!!...

the road links to support the proposed developments are inadequate

I am not convinced that the proposed SERT routes will be popular with people coming in to southend. New road route will destroy some of the local green belt. The proposed benefits on the enlarged airport is being used to promote the destruction of the local natural environment. Should the Airport Fail the Area will have lost a valuable natural asset

The transport needed for an airport to develop will cause more environmental problems and added pollution and congestion to an already small area.The required infrastructure for an airport is great and Southend doesnt currently have it.I for one didnt move here to have a major airport on my doorstep

Renaissance Southend Ltd supports the need for a comprehensive transport strategy to underpin the sustainability of the JAAP. This strategy should develop the potential for SERT, as well as rail and other alternatives to car borne journeys to assist in encouraging a modal shift, particularly in terms of the employees working at the Airport and Business Park, which are likely to have a more significant impact on the transport network at peak hours than the proposed increase in airport passenger numbers.

The airport has already lost one or more attempts to extend the runway for environmental, planning and heritage reasons. The council seem to be ignoring this and pressing on regardless of the views of local citizens.

We have a major international airport only 40 minutes away that serves the area well. The proposed expansion will make southend, Leigh and Rochford accommodation black spots as there are a significant number of homes on the potential flight paths. The expansion of an airport in such a highly populated residential area is lunacy and the profits of private individuals is taking precedence over the interests of the many. There are very few (if any) major airports within such a close proximity to so many residential houses, the council however appears to be ignoring this.

We and our parents live on these flight paths and the noise even from "quieter" jets is horrendous. We are unable to hear each other speaking in our gardens when a plane comes into land and all residents affected are unlikely to be able to use or enjoy our garden in the same way. There will be thousands of houses and voters affected and the flight path will make most of Southend, Leigh on s Sea and Rochford, residential black spots. Southend residential area will eventually become not dissimilar to those near Heathrow - with one important difference. The houses of Southend will be right beside the airport instead of a reasonable distance from it.

I object on the grounds that the present transport infrastructure is not sufficient to sope with existing demand, and to increase its capacity would (I believe) have detrimental impact to the local environment.

Very few details are given about how a travel strategy will be introduced.
The sorts of proposals that we need to see are:
1. There need to be special trains from London to the new airport station.
2. There needs to be a travel plan for airport staff and businesses on or near the airport.
3. There needs to be a park and ride scheme to the airport, with the parking area some way out along the A127.
4. Parking fees at the airport should be high to deter parking.
5. Local bus services should be improved.
The JAAP must have some specific proposals for a strategy

Transport links are an integral part of an enhanced new airport. These should in the main be public transport facilities. It is important to avoid the long queues of private motor cars often found around airports, with all the consequent pollution, noise, ugliness and damage. Efficient and continuous rail, coach and bus services for the airport should allow us seamless, stress free and clean connections with flights.

I do not agree with airport expansion or having a new business park.

Too much traffic already in our area, no more please.

It is stated that "the environmental impacts (noise and air quality) will need to be carefully managed" Except for policy LS7 on page 22. There is no detail about how noise and air quality will be managed. No mention is made of other environmental impacts, including loss of green belt, loss of agricultural land, loss of football pitches (area xi) and the subsequent loss of habitats. It is stated that "the preferred option is to pursue high scale employment growth". A major part of the plan seems to be job creation. Most of the office blocks in Victoria Avenue are empty and redundant, having been built in the 1960's, why are these not adapted and converted as modern offices/business units, since public transport is good in that area and they are close to the town centre. Victoria Avenue should be regenerated before development of more Green Belt land is allowed. A total of 6,200 additional jobs will be created. What kind of buildings will be allowed. More high rise blocks? The Green Belt should not be spoilt and developed if there is vacant capacity elswhere. e.g in Victoria Avenue. The construction of a new railway statiion at the airport, as proposed in the Airport Masterplan 2005, appears to be a good idea as it will attract more passengers and bring them by public transport. With the new railway station the Airport Masterplan estimates that there could be around 1 million passengers by 2012 and 2 million by 2030. Why is the extended runway needed? In paragraph 2.3 it is stated that in 2021 with an extended runway the airport could have 1 and 2 million passengers. Passenger numbers will therefore not increase a great deal if the runway were extended. Before irreparable damage is done to the local environment, it is essential that more research is carried out into the future use of Southend Airport, and the likely impact of expansion at Stanstead and Heathrow. Expansion at Southend is likely to be unneccessary, particularly if a second runway is built at Stansted. The Preferred Options document is full of jargon e.g the vision 'an area that realises its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy'. A public consultation document should be written in plain English. Terms such as 'sustainable' should have been included in the glossary. Why was the document not printed on double-sided paper? This would have saved on copies and paper. Issue (ii) and (iii) are contradictory. (ii) mentions improvements to public transport and reduction of current levels of car borne traffic. (iii) mentions road improvements and provision of new routes. It is well known that new roads only increase traffic. Elsewhere it is stated that the two local authorities 'are committed to enhancing the road network serving the areas to the east of Southend and Rochford' and that a corridor is safeguarded through area v. A road to the East was morted years ago and dropped, again connecting new roads to the East of Southend will only increase traffic and pollution at a time when public transport should be encouraged.

The airport expansion will make it impossible to improve transport because the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane to join with Nestuda Way will be sure to create terrible traffic congestion as Hockley, Rochford and Ashingdon people try to gain access to the A127 whilst converging with Southend bound traffic from Eastwoodbury Lane West. Roads around Rochford will become more congested than they are as people from Hockley, Ashingdon seek alternative routes.

We are making an objection to all options as it is a badly thought out scheme, the only reason seems to be money driven by two persons Eddie Stobart and the manager at Southend Airport, reasons given below, and of course the revenue that Rochford and Southend council will receive.