Issue 4

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

Any road improvements mentioned are entirely within the immediate JAAP area plan. There is no proposal to improve the A127 (eg widening it to 3 lanes) or to create an entirely new northern access route to the north of Rochford and linking up with the A130 and M25/M11. The provision of walking and cycling routes presupposes that it will be straight-forward to cross busy roads with a bike or on foot. The proposers of this plan obviously travel by car and don't live in the real world.

The infrastructure around this area bearly copes with current traffic levels. Improvements to the A127 and the SERT routes should not depend on the airport expansion! The additional traffic generated by the mumbers of passengers and cargo will make it impossible to move in or out of the area by road or train.

I fail to understand how providing better walking and cycling facilities near an airport helps passengers. Who will walk or cycle to an airport with their cases? Unless, of course it is extreme forward planning for when the airport is no longer there. Somehow I doubt that.

We already live in a very heavily conjested corner of England, to encourage more traffic onto our roads is utter madness! Just driving around our local area is becoming more and more difficult,WE DON'T NEED MORE CONJESTION.
From the proposals mentioned, it does not set my mind at rest that this has been addressed, and in this GREEN AGE I think the proposals are ludicrous.

Whilst I support this I have real concerns about the need for a fast road down to the airport and not just tinkering with the local network access. We have long needed a motorway into this area and beyond just to cope with the existing commuter traffic. If there is to be a park & ride it should be much nearer to London on the main A127 and/or near a rail station on the Liverpool Street line

Objections/Comments on London Southend Airport and Environs JAAP

Section 3 - Issue 4

Local enhancements to the current road structures around an expanded London Southend Airport have been considered, together with car parking facilities within the revised airport boundaries, but reference only made to the need to integrate with proposals to improve the functioning of the wider network, including improvements to the A127.

This latter item, in our view, is the key to the potential viability of any enhanced London Southend Airport facility. Due to the current density of road traffic over considerable parts of the day, this main road artery to Southend suffers from severe congestion and is a very slow route both into and out of the area.

In addition, the threat of additional housing in the Rochford, Rayleigh and Hawkwell areas under contemporaneous development proposals can only worsen the current situation both on this main road and all the local B roads in this area.

It makes sense, therefore, that improvement proposals for the A127 should be included in the Proposed Optoin as an integral element for the enhancement of London Southend Airport, and until these are agreed surely there can be no enhancement to London Southend Airport.

On the basis that Southend has never managed to develop a realistic and workable transport plan in the 50 years I have lived in the town, I think it highly unlikely that it will be achieved this time - result gridlock.

The effect of any additional traffic on the transport system (which is saturated even at today's traffic levels) will be gridlock, even without consideration of the additional housing planned in the Rochford area. The A127 is currently *the* single feasible route to the airport from outside the area and is a virtual car park in rush hour both within and outside Southend. Also, how will the road system beyond Southend be upgraded to contain the additional volume generated both by the airport and other development in the area?

Whilst it may be accepted that an appropriate transport strategy is essential to ensure that development within the JAAP is sustainable, if there has been a local transport strategy in the past then it hasn't worked which doesn't inspire for the future. I am sorry to say this but a lot of the quoted statements do not have any constructed or supported view. I think the whole thing is based on an optimism which a year or two back may just have had some merit but in to-day's climate the whole thing is looking stupid.

PWCC objects to this proposal

Southend BC have not managed the transport strategies for Southend Hospital expansion or the RBS offices. For years residents have suffered from lack of parking to cater for the influx of patients and visitors and RBS employees. I object on the grounds that there is no prospect of this being achieved.

I object to the development of the airport, in part because of the increase in traffic congestion, air and noise pollution. JAAP does not clearly explain how local infrastructure would be improved or how funding would be provided. It is unrealistic to expect many people moving from cars to public transport, cycling or walking. The JAAP Evidence Base tabulates travel methods for people currently based at the airport and despite the other options most use their car as it is the most convenient method for them. This is likely to remain largely true as airport and business park users increase.

The consultation document deliberately misleads the public into thinking that the local authorities plan to tackle the huge problem of road congestion that expanded operations will cause. If Southend & Rochford councils were serious about reducing traffic the JAAP would have announced that it would ban any new car parks within the area and set to gradually reducing the car parking capacity at and near the airport.

The fact that Southend and Rochford have no intention of reducing the car parking capacity of the area demonstrates that they are, in fact, content to see road traffic increase considerably.

I support 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.

No aviation expansion
I do not see the need for any future expansion of the airport it would beunsustainable given the the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions
Invest instead in rail

Climate change is the greatest threat facing the planet We are not obliged to cater for the predicted demand for air travel. The sector makes a disproportionate contribution to climate change and should be included in targets for cutting emissions There should not be an assumption that there is a requirement to develop the airport at all
Expansion of Southend will undoubtedly act as a driver for increased CO2 emissions at a time when national, regional and local government should be
acting to prevent damaging climate change

We already live in a very heavily conjested corner of England, to encourage more traffic onto our roads is utter madness! Just driving around our local area is becoming more and more difficult,WE DON'T NEED MORE CONJESTION.
From the proposals mentioned, it does not set my mind at rest that this has been addressed, and in this GREEN AGE I think the proposals are ludicrous.

This will provide an absolute nightmare for those of us who live in Eastwoodbury Road and the surrounding roads under the flight path. Motorists can only join the A127 at Kent Elms or Tescos. Whilst building a miraculous road to transport 1/2 million people yearly through a densely populated area, all traffic will need to be diverted to the Rayleigh Road/Snakes Lane junction which is already snarled up with traffic every morning, and turning right onto the A127, takes at least ½ hour. Add to this nightmare by introducing Park and Ride into the midst of this.

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.

This development will result in total melt down on our roads. The traffic does not move well at the best of times due to the large volume and this will just add to the problems

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.

I can't see how all this can be done without detriment to the surrounding area.

The A127 is already usually very busy and often at a standstill (especially in the peaks); how can adding more traffic help?!

SERT LOOKS good but are the routes the best ones? Shoebury to the Airport?!!!

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.

Although support airport expansion we have concerns regarding transport links.

Despite best intentions of planning management it will be very difficult to persuade passengers to reach airport by public transport.

1. Any increase in passenger numbers should correlate with/be restricted by road capacity.

2. Should airport parking capacity be too low and/or parking fees too high - we would see a large number of vehicles displaced onto surrounding residential roads.

In addition the roads around Rochford Station could also be congested by cars, as airport passengers use these as free parking then take a one stop train ride to airport.

Stambridge Road and Rocheway are already used as a 'park and ride' for commuters into the city.

What form of parking restrictions will be implemented to prevent our local roads being congested by airport passenger parking?

I wish to register my objection in the strongest possible terms to the above, for the following main reasons:- 1) Increased noise and pollution - particularly as we are on the flight path. There should be a complete ban on night flights from 10pm - 7am (including freight). 2) Increase in traffic on a road system which is already unable to cope with current levels of traffic. An additional route to the A127 needs to be in place. 3) The airport is too near to densely populated areas to sustain a great increase in activity and would be dangerous in the event of a crash. 4) The proposed commercial development would mean more building on the flood plain, and would also mean losing green belt land. Once the proposed construction work has been finished, very few extra jobs would result but there would be a catastrophic decline in the quality of life for people in the Southend area. We do not need any extra offices and shops - those already built lie empty and abandoned - i.e. office blocks in Victoria Avenue. I would also like to say this consultation has NOT been conducted well. There should have been a simple, pre-paid form with a few tick boxes to fill in, instead of which we have to go to the trouble of writing a letter and buying a stamp! I did try to use the web-site, which insisted I registered and said it would reply by sending me a pass-world-I am still waiting......

I made repeated calls throughout yesterday in connection with these plans, as set out in the publication 'have your say' only to get the engaged signal or a message that you were not available and would I leave 'the usual message' - whatever that may mean. Regardless of whether the caller was pro or anti the proposal this service seems to be quite inadequate and one can only question whether the council is really interested or will it, as has been suggested, 'a done deal'. However, in the hope that my view will count I enclose them.
I am againstg the proposed extension of the airport for the following reasons. 1) If the increased flight patterns are realised they will increase aircraft noise which will seriously affect those like ourselves who are under the flightpath - the aircraft may be quieter than those now used but there will be a greater number by far and probably lower. 2)There will be greater pollution generally, particularly under the flightpath. 3) There will be increased road traffic and the 127 is already difficult at times - again more pollution. This will have an effect on all surrounding roads to those directly to and from the airport. 4) Those of us who have purchased our homes which in many cases represents our major capital resource for our latter years, will suffer flight blight as the value of our property drops. 5) Generally, a considerable proportion of us will find our quality of life diminished - admittedly we may be in the minority and those who live in areas not affected may find it easier to go off from a local airport but the responsibility of the council is to all the people and here there is a grave danger that many people will be made to offer under these proposals. If the proposals are agreed then I would strongly urge that a plan for full and adequate compensation will be provided to any property subject to 'flight blight' which could prevent the sale for any realistic price in the foreseable future.

Strongly object to the plan for the development of the airport (existing plan). The economic benefits for the area are greatly outweighed by the significant environmental impacts. Most significant being noise, congestion and air pollution. This is a poorly thought out scheme. The location of Southend Airport is totally unsuitable for the significant expansion beyond its existing capacity. The benefits to the local community are unproven. There is absolutely no evidence that 7380 jobs can be created or that they will go to local people. This is a fictional figure that is being used to justify airport expansion. There is already established and expanding airport capacity in the South East. The environmental implications of this airport extension are catastrophic for the local area. The surface access plan will result in increased congestion. Main arterial routes (A127 and A13) are already very seriously congested. Airport expansion will make this considerably worse.

I have read the Preferred Options Document dated February 2009 and write to object to the proposals. I am not against development and progress and can see that the proposals would involve greater work opportunities and better facilities for those people living within the Southend on Sea area. The problems that I foresee however could not be overcome without considerable cost and upheaval within the borough of Southend on Sea. The documents suggest that the purpose is to increase the passenger traffic through the airport and it is hoped that eventually this would reach 2 million passengers per year. If this were achieved and if one divides this equally throughout the days of the year this would amount to nearly 5,500 passengers per day. If they all came to the airport by car, whether it be their own cars or taxis, this would involve between 1,800 and 2,700 extra cars on the road around the airport per day. All would need to use the A127 at some point. It is that road that would be totally clogged for much of the time when this extra traffic is mixed with the present traffic which even at the present time, causes long delays to certain sections of the A127. It is true of course that you are proposing a new railway station will be provided but that would only be used by those people living to the north of Southend. For someone living to the Southern parts in, for example, Leigh on Sea, Hadleigh, Benfleet and Thundersley, they would not be able to use that station. To travel from those areas to Southend Central and then to get from there to Southend Victoria in order to board another train would just not be acceptable. The new station at the airport would I feel be under used. Considerable airport parking areas would therefore need to be provided and there would need to be shuttle services from there to the terminal building, which would mean more road usage in that area. I note that whilst some new roads would be constructed nevertheless such shuttle services would have to use part of the existing Eastwoodbury Lane and this is by no means a main road. To provide sufficient car parking with suitable access to those areas will involve enormous expense in providing new and/or improved main access roads. I do not believe that this is possible and regrettably therefore I object to the proposed expansion of the airport.

I have read the Preferred Options Document dated February 2009 and write to object to the proposals. I am not against development and progress and can see that the proposals would involve greater work opportunities and better facilities for those people living within the Southend on Sea area. The problems that I foresee however could not be overcome without considerable cost and upheaval within the borough of Southend on Sea. The documents suggest that the purpose is to increase the passenger traffic through the airport and it is hoped that eventually this would reach 2 million passengers per year. If this were achieved and if one divides this equally throughout the days of the year this would amount to nearly 5,500 passengers per day. If they all came to the airport by car, whether it be their own cars or taxis, this would involve between 1,800 and 2,700 extra cars on the road around the airport per day. All would need to use the A127 at some point. It is that road that would be totally clogged for much of the time when this extra traffic is mixed with the present traffic which even at the present time, causes long delays to certain sections of the A127. It is true of course that you are proposing a new railway station will be provided but that would only be used by those people living to the north of Southend. For someone living to the Southern parts in, for example, Leigh on Sea, Hadleigh, Benfleet and Thundersley, they would not be able to use that station. To travel from those areas to Southend Central and then to get from there to Southend Victoria in order to board another train would just not be acceptable. The new station at the airport would I feel be under used. Considerable airport parking areas would therefore need to be provided and there would need to be shuttle services from there to the terminal building, which would mean more road usage in that area. I note that whilst some new roads would be constructed nevertheless such shuttle services would have to use part of the existing Eastwoodbury Lane and this is by no means a main road. To provide sufficient car parking with suitable access to those areas will involve enormous expense in providing new and/or improved main access roads. I do not believe that this is possible and regrettably therefore I object to the proposed expansion of the airport.