Issue 4

I object to the development and role of Southend London airport for the following reasons:- a) The change of use to huge area of green belt, agricultural land and public open space to make way for business parks reliant upon London Southend Airport is a weak business plan, a white elephant. b) There are many properties around Southend in desperate need of redevelopment i.e the office blocks along Victoria Avenue and Southend High Street, which would make the above proposals unneccesary. c) The unneccesary eviction of the occupiers from their homes, and the demolition of the brickwork cottages, just because it is easier than to develop the site around them is totally disgraceful, policy E4. I object to the development and role of London Southend airport for the following reasons:- a) A significant increase of passengers plus employees traffic to and from the airport will rely heavily on the highway network. The only route planned is to connect to the A127. However, the A127 is already used to full capacity and cannot take planned increase in traffic. b) Unless a totally new road network is in place far reaching outside the South East Essex region it will be pointless to develop the airport. If such a new road scheme is not in place before the airport development, it would never go ahead afterwards. I object to the development and role of London Southend Airport for the following reasons: a) Policy T5 - Park and ride facility will be developed on land west side of Nestuda Way. However, this plan contravines policy LS5, which defines the public safety zone. The internation civil aviation organisation according to the policy LS5 should not allow any such development as policy T5. b) There is not an alternative area for a park and ride facility to make the airport development viable, therefore all expansion should be rejected. I object to the future development and role of Southend Airport Issue 1. Policy LS6 - Runway Extension for the following reasons:- a) Increasing the length of the runway would allow older larger planes, that are slow to gain high, to use the airport. b) Vision and objectives, 2-3, 2nd paragraph states:- 'Passengers will travel on quiet fuel efficient planes'. In my opinion , this is a statement of missinformation as such plane will not be quiet and, although using less fuel than older planes they are not fuel efficient. c) I can see no margin for error or emergency for the increase of air traffic flying over Leigh on Sea and Southend which is a town densly populated. An emergency crash site has not been discussed which I feel is naive of all organisatiion involved.

Stobart is a freight operator. There must be a temptation to use the airport when road congestion is less. I worry about the vague comment on nightime 'agreed noise quotation'.
This document talks of a Link Road from A127 as a solution to congestion. It is not. The problem is the existing heavy traffic on A127 and A13 which can barely cope with present use. clearly an expanded airport - plus the development plans for Thames Gateway (and the new part) will make road transport here even worse (especially Stobarts lorries). Pious talk of public transport, cycling, walking, etc will not change much. This is England not Denmark. People especially the 'highly skilled' will drive to work especially when on night shift at an airport.

I am not in favour of an englarged Southend Airport. I've lived in Southend for the past 38 years and have personal experience of aircraft flying low over my house at all hours day and night. Although my house was not on their official flight path. I object to this proposed expansion on green issues as well, as over use of the already congested roads in and around the airport. I do not like the idea of having to divert from my usual route because Eastwoodbury Lane will be closed. Thought of day and night flights with large passenger or cargo planes does not bear thinking about. I can hear the planner saying - Ah but planes will be on a strict land and take off schedule and planes will not fly over my house. As I have explained previously they do not stick to those schedules, check Luton Airport local residence, 3 times more night activity of that scheduled. On the safety issue, a light aircraft crash landed in Eastwood Park, luckily no one other than the occupants in the plane were killed, had this been a large passenger or cargo plane one does not have to be an expert to predict the outcome. So the overall outlook for an expanded airport has no advantages to Southend. I do not believe that a large of local people will be employed. These jobs will be filled with airport company own personnel. I tried to use your website to put my views forward unfortunately it was not operating.

Thankyou for talking to me earlier on the telephone. The similtaneous arrival of the consultation document with comments to the press councillors of both councils that the latter were in favour of the plans did nothing to stimulate confidence that residents views would carry any weight. Indeed I am not aware that the earlier 'Issues and Options' document was widely circulated to ordinary residents - I certainly did not receive one. In addition the questionnaire to which you referred has not yet surfaced and I have to add that the most recent 'Have Your Say' paper has not reached everyone, judging by random enquiries. It would appear that the consultation process is somewhat flawed. Your assurance that the consultation exercise was far from complete was therefore welcome. I attend my personal comments on the proposals. I can only apologise for the handwritten submission as I do not have access to typing facilities.

I object to the fact that with no infrastructure in place that transport to and from the airport. There will be a signifiant increase in the number of people (passengers and employees) using the airport and they will rely on the public highways to gain access and the roadways as they stand would seem to be woefully inadequate. You seem to think the A127 would be upto the task but as this is already an extremely busy road it seems unlikely to be able to take the extra traffic. If you haven't got a decent new road network in place, or at least planned for the South East of Essex, it would be pointless to develop and expand the airport as per the current plans. I object to the situation of the Park and Ride facility as laid out in Policy T5, looking at the map of the site the park and ride zone has been put in an area designated as a public safety zone which appears to contravene the policy LS5. The International Civil Aviation organisation should not allow such a risk to public safety, there is a contradiction in putting a park and ride in that area 'public safety zone' as in an emergency. Surely the area should be clear to allow the emergency services access etc and there is no alternative park and ride, no infrastructure to put in a new public-accesable 'not in the middle of a safety zone' area unless you were thinking of putting it outside of the marked map in which case that should also have been mentioned and a secondary map included. a) Increasing the runway length would allow many types of aircraft including older larger models which are slow to gain altitute create a lot of noise and pollution (not to mention the added pollution from people travelling to the airport). b) Visions and objectives, 2-3 you have included the statement 'passenger will travel on quiet efficient planes. I haven't read in the newspapers about the invention of such a plane, they may have improved planes with the help of talented aerodynamic engineers, but at the moment planes do still make noise and pollute. Are there plans to offset this 'carbon footprint' and ensure that local residents benefit from the offsetting of the 'carbon footprint'? c) I have been shown a map of the site and it seems that there is a lack of thought for emergency landing areas given that the Borough of Southend (including neighbouring borough's also is a very densly populated area and the fact that there has been documented light aircraft crashes in the vicinity of South East Essex (and beyond!) this and the Hudson River landing. Should the safety of residents & businesses be considered more thoroughly. a)A large area of the proposed development is made up of green belt, agricultural land, public space and what appears to be private property, and it appears that a change of use to business parks which would depend on the airport for their success. I am not opposed to progress but when we have too many dissused offices and business properties in the area that could be redeveloped then it would appear pointless to rip up green belt, agricultural land and public spaces. The regeneration of business and commercial properties in Southend town would bring a lot of jobs into the area and improve businesses already in the area. Victoria Avenue is a good example of commercial property just left to stand empty. Also, I find it a little shocking that this area has long been identified as an area in need of improvement. If this is the case why hasn't it been improved rather than leaving it to tear down to building another project?

I am totally against any runway extension or move to increase noise and pollution in the Leigh on Sea area as we are under the flightpath. When the larger aircraft come over even now, the noise and disturbance is deafening - I can read numbers and count windows without any problem. The closeness of these planes to our heavily built-up town is frightening. The risk and safety to the residents alone should be enough to say no. Without doubt, my property will devalue, as is already happening owing to the credit crunch. Traffic congestion will worsen. The A127 is practically at a stand still during certain times of the day, but extremely busy at all times. How will our emergency services cope with the extra traffic including extra large haulage vehicles. I urge you to give my comments an honest and unbiased consideration. Remember - the health both physically and mentally of local residents is at stake if any expansion/increasing noise and pollution is allowed to take place. Noise from extra flights 24/7. Air pollution. Traffic congestion. The diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. Cutting in two the (new public space) which is now a park. Also the road to Warners Bridge which can only result in the demolition of homes. Danger from crashes. The more flights the bigger the chance, law of average. Taking of green belt land. Loss of sports pitches. The runway extension will bring bigger planes which are claimed to be less noisy. There is no such thing as quiet jet. Their use will not stop the use of the others or the older even noisier cargo planes. London City Runway is shorter than the current one at Southend. The same planes can use Southend so it is not needed.

On the green 'Have your Say' leaflet under the heading 'introduction and vision' the JAAP vision for the area - it reads - Ensuring the quality of life for it's residents....We take strong issue with this statement as we live directly under the flight path which will affect us both day and night.
We do not believe that night flights will be kept to a minimum, in fact we do not want any more night flights which at present are minimal.
The quality of air will worsen and be detrimental for people in this area especially as we are under the flight path and I suffer from asthma.
The safety for residents in our area is a worry.
The transport situation for the whole area (already bad) will be a disaster.
We are strongly opposed to the development of London Southend Airport as is everyone around our area. (Listen to them). We do not want our quality of life ruined thankyou - and neither would council members.

I am writing to you asking what you are going to do about the proposal for Southend Airport. I am objecting to night flights as now when my bedroom window is open a loud flight noise wakes me up, so dont want more. I am objecting to more flights , noise during the day, I want to enjoy where I live. I am objecting to children and the rest of us to have more pollutiion in the air. I object to anymore traffic we have congestion now. Stansted is not far away. We have some lovely open spaces why do we want all this spoilt. No one who lives near an airport wants it, why would we want one. It wont bring anything to the area only to the airport owner. So I am relying on you to stand up and get this rejected not amended and the given the OK.

Having responded earlier to the Consultation Document and the preferred option plan put forward by the Council, and followed up the information that has been reported locally since, in my view, remains that the disadvantages of going ahead with the expansion of the Airport, still far outweigh the advantages and will have a seriously detrimental effect on the quality of life of many Southend residents.
In this regard, I would emphasize the following points:
Other studies into the benefits for employment of airport development, have shown that the increase has usually fallen far short of the figures quoted by the local councils in their arguments to support airport expansion. Southend is not likely to be any different.
Despite a new rail station, airports require good road access for those who for practical reasons need to travel by car, and for commercial business. Southend has appalling road access once you are off the M25; the main routes into the area are virtually guaranteed to be slow or congested, (A127/A13), without the increased traffic that would be engendered by the airport. As I understand it, responsibility for these access highways is well outside the remit of either Rochford or Southend Councils, and extra traffic on the roads will not only be detrimental to air travellers, but would also have a knock-on effects for tourists/workers and others travelling to Southend. Then there is the question of parking space.
Airport expansiion plans tend to meet with local opposition: Stansted, Carlisle, Heathrow, and with good reason. The main issues being noise and pollution - both of which were alluded to in your report, but without a viable solution. Freight traffic, as you know, is not subject to the same restrictions as passenger flights. the claim put forward in the JAAP that 'new planes' will prove to be quieter and less damaging to the environment than at present, is an unknown supposition in terms of 'when' and 'how', and cannot be put forward as a means of reassuring the public.
Air travel is also a major component in air pollution and climate change. I am sure the Council will be aware that a recent report by the Ministry of Environment has stressed the risk of rising sea levels due to climate change, highlighting in particular the risk of flooding as a result in areas such as the Thames Estuary, and the east of Southend in particular. Assurances by the Council that 'there is nothing to worry about as you're maintaining sea defences' is a somewhat glib response when, at the same time, the Council is actively pursuing plans to increase air traffic in the arrea irrespective of the global concerns about air travel and its damaging effects.
The Council wants to revamp Southen's image. It will undoubtedly do so with the extra noise, traffic, traffic jams, and pollution created by the extension of the Airport. a nice day on the beach - if you can get there - to the noise of air traffic overhead; and a persistent detrimental effects for local residents.

The plans outlined for the development of the airport are very good with some reservations. The maintenance, repair and overhaul facilities expansion is a very good idea and adds to what is already at the airport. The Saxon high technology business park is also a good idea but should not be built on green belt land - whenever green belt land is used and replaced it is never as much or as good as what was taken- there is plenty of land on the northern part of the airport. Care must be taken with security aspects of the airport though.
I have calculated that with one million passengers using the airport annually it involves 27 flights per day with 100 seated aircraft and 18 flights per day with 150 seated aircraft. Two million passengers using the airport annually means 55 flights per day for 100 seated aircraft and 37 flights per day per 150 seated aircraft. This is a large amount of aircraft movements. Have the planners considered the take up of these facilities. Southend Airport has not got a good reputation for providing passenger amenities. Why did the last passenger carrying user of the airport (Maersk Air) stop using the airport?
In the consultation document mention is made of transport links to the airport being improved; will that entail building demolition, commercial and residential, in the airport environs? will more green belt land need to be used? The Southend Arterial Road is already inadequate at peak periods: it does not seem to have been taken into consideration by the planners in the consultation document.
However, what does not seem to have been considered is the massive increase in carbon dioxide emissions - between 10,000 to 20,000 flights annually - even when using 'fuel efficient' aircraft. It is well known that civil aviation and electrical generation are the largest producers of carbon dioxide gas. The increase in air traffic at the airport will only worsen this situation and speed up global warming at a time when carbon dioxide emissions should be reduced by massive amounts globally. By not developing the airport will help keep these emissions down.
The Leigh times has speculated that the airport expansiion is a 'done deal' and I am concerned that this is correct. The information leaflets that were supposed to be distributed last year by Southend Council have only just arrived - despite counsil assurances that every home in the Borough had received one. This is another example of unacceptable practice by the planning department of the council.
In normal circumstances I would be for the expansion of the airport. The increased activity at the airport would create more employment and bring more visitors to the town. Unfortunately you are thirty years too late.

1) There is no mention or input by the Highways agency, and will the roads below be widened before any changes to the Airport are made.
a) There is no plan when the A127 will be widened to three lanes East and West. b) There is no plan when the A13 will be widened to three lanes East and West. c) There is no plan when the A12 will be widened to three lanes. d) There is no plan when the A130 will be widened to three lanes.
2) You have not given an estimate of the Vortex strikes expected in the first five years. What emergency procedures will be in place e.g 24/7 - 365 days etc.
3) You have not told us who the expected airlines are who will be carrying passengers.
4) You have not said how people living on the West side of Rayleigh Weir will get into Rochford or Southend with all the extra traffic.
5) The park and ride facility is unclear, is it for Southend Council employees to park in so that it will save the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre car park? Is it for people expected to fly out of Southend Airport?
6) There has been no consideration to the people living in the area from Shoeburyness to Upminster who will be affected by the additiional noise and traffic, our environment and quality of life.
We know that it is a done deal and this will fall on deaf ears.

1) There is no mention or input by the Highways agency, and will the roads below be widened before any changes to the Airport are made.
a) There is no plan when the A127 will be widened to three lanes East and West. b) There is no plan when the A13 will be widened to three lanes East and West. c) There is no plan when the A12 will be widened to three lanes. d) There is no plan when the A130 will be widened to three lanes.
2) You have not given an estimate of the Vortex strikes expected in the first five years. What emergency procedures will be in place e.g 24/7 - 365 days etc.
3) You have not told us who the expected airlines are who will be carrying passengers.
4) You have not said how people living on the West side of Rayleigh Weir will get into Rochford or Southend with all the extra traffic.
5) The park and ride facility is unclear, is it for Southend Council employees to park in so that it will save the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre car park? Is it for people expected to fly out of Southend Airport?
6) There has been no consideration to the people living in the area from Shoeburyness to Upminster who will be affected by the additiional noise and traffic, our environment and quality of life.
We know that it is a done deal and this will fall on deaf ears.

1) There is no mention or input by the Highways agency, and will the roads below be widened before any changes to the Airport are made.
a) There is no plan when the A127 will be widened to three lanes East and West. b) There is no plan when the A13 will be widened to three lanes East and West. c) There is no plan when the A12 will be widened to three lanes. d) There is no plan when the A130 will be widened to three lanes.
2) You have not given an estimate of the Vortex strikes expected in the first five years. What emergency procedures will be in place e.g 24/7 - 365 days etc.
3) You have not told us who the expected airlines are who will be carrying passengers.
4) You have not said how people living on the West side of Rayleigh Weir will get into Rochford or Southend with all the extra traffic.
5) The park and ride facility is unclear, is it for Southend Council employees to park in so that it will save the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre car park? Is it for people expected to fly out of Southend Airport?
6) There has been no consideration to the people living in the area from Shoeburyness to Upminster who will be affected by the additiional noise and traffic, our environment and quality of life.
We know that it is a done deal and this will fall on deaf ears.

1) There is no mention or input by the Highways agency, and will the roads below be widened before any changes to the Airport are made.
a) There is no plan when the A127 will be widened to three lanes East and West. b) There is no plan when the A13 will be widened to three lanes East and West. c) There is no plan when the A12 will be widened to three lanes. d) There is no plan when the A130 will be widened to three lanes.
2) You have not given an estimate of the Vortex strikes expected in the first five years. What emergency procedures will be in place e.g 24/7 - 365 days etc.
3) You have not told us who the expected airlines are who will be carrying passengers.
4) You have not said how people living on the West side of Rayleigh Weir will get into Rochford or Southend with all the extra traffic.
5) The park and ride facility is unclear, is it for Southend Council employees to park in so that it will save the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre car park? Is it for people expected to fly out of Southend Airport?
6) There has been no consideration to the people living in the area from Shoeburyness to Upminster who will be affected by the additiional noise and traffic, our environment and quality of life.
We know that it is a done deal and this will fall on deaf ears.

I very strongly object to the expansion of the airport for the following reasons:-
1. A huge increase in noise and air pollution leading to a lower quality of life. 2. Extension of the flightpath would result in many houses being demolished and causing upset and suffering to all concerned. 3. An increase in harmful greenhouse gas emissions. 4. More traffic on our congested roads leading to more upset and misery. 5. An increase in planes flying over extensively developed residential areas is an accident waiting to happen. 6. What about compensation and a reduction in our council tax. 7. Also do we not have a right to vote on this.

We are deepy concerned at the proposed expansion of Southend Airport for the following reasons:- 1. Our house is directly in the flight path and with a 24 hour licence it seems that there will be no limit to the number of night flights which will take place. This will seriously disturb our sleep, to the detriment of our health.
2. The new whispering jets, while quieter than ordinary jets, still make a noise which will seem very loud to those of us who live in the flight path. 3. Whispering jets will not be used for cargo flights, which are anticipated to fly at night, so the noise to residents will be horrendous. 4. The roads in South-East Essex are already extremely congested and it only takes one breakdown or accident to block many roads in the surrounding area. How on earth will they be able to cope with the influx of so many more vehicles if the expansion goes ahead. 5. The resultant pollution will have a severe impact on the health of residents and school children. 6. No account will be taken of the devaluation of property in the surrounding areas and no compensation offered. 7. The expansion will have a profound effect on the quality of life of residents in the affected areas.

I am writing to strongly object to changes proposed at Southend Airport. We already have too much noise pollution from existing day and night flights. It does nothing for Southend. People arrive and return from airports clogging up roads already congested - they don't spend money in the town. The only beneficiary of all this is Stobart. I am objecting on the grounds of: Noise pollution. Environmental pollution. Extra traffic of already congested roads. Disruption to school lessons which teachers say already occurs with existing flights. I request that you do your utmost to reject these foolish and unnecessary proposals.

I have read the London Southend airport JAAP consultation document and would like the following objections taken into consideration:-
The airport in its current and future position is sited in close proximity to many residential areas with family housing at its heart. The effect on quality of life for residents will be seriously detremental, with an increase in noise and fuel pollution even taking into account quieter and more fuel efficient aircraft. I object strongly to any proposal for an increase in night flights as road traffic noise is already at an unacceptable level for local residents. The impact on the major roads in the area will be catastrophic. Major route A127 can not cope with traffic at present. Manners Way is already conjested both at peak times and increasingly outside peak times and increased road traffic to and from the airport site will always seek to find alternate routes - Manners Way will undoubtedly be one of them. The increase in large lorries is already a nuisance due to the business park sited at the top of the road and will only increase with expansion. The houses shake as the lorries pass at present. Mr Stobbart's financial interest in the airport will now increase lorry usage even further. Safety of this road is a key issue with many RTA's and a recent fatality outside my door. The future safety of the local residents many with children should be of paramount importance. Eastwoodbury Lane Road connection will only congest the access into Southend further. Will you close Rochford or Prittlewell Stations? Why is there any need for another station so close to existing stations. I object to any further expansion of the airport and would like my objections noted for the record.

I am writing to state my strong objections to the planned expansion of London Southend Airport. This is in response to the canvassing of
opinion, which started in March 2009. In this letter, I will state many good reasons why this is not in the best interest of the airport, and the community at large.
Firstly, let's look at the simple practicality of transport links to London Southend Airport. Currently, the roads in and around the Southend area in a constant state of gridlock. The increase in holiday and freight traffic would only compound this. Southend's infrastructure could not cope with the planned two million additional passengers and countless additional freight vehicles. It is suggested that people will come by rail using the new airport station; however any suggestion of this is pure fantasy. As you should be aware, we are a nation of car users. There is also not the space for any road expansion or parking.
Secondly, the church on Eastwoodbury Lane, St Laurence and All Saints, according to the proposal is safe. Previously, plans were drawn up to 'move' or destroy this Grade 1 listed building as it was in the way of the required safety zones. It took a lot of fighting to save this building. Now there are plans to expand the airport. I do not believe that this church is safe.
This brings me to my third point. If the church is not safe, neither is the graveyard, which includes an ashes plot. This could obviously not be moved. Also, located in this graveyard are numerous war graves dating from the time of the Great War, through the period when Southend Airport was Royal Air Force Rochford, to the present day. Desecration of this site would be seen by myself and the nation as a whole as criminal. The increase in traffic over the already cluttered skies of the South-East region would increase the likelihood of an air disaster. Honestly, I believe that Southend Airport is too poorly situated to be viable as a passenger airport. I believe that any plans of this nature are made by persons living with their heads in the clouds.

I am writing to state my strong objections to the planned expansion of London Southend Airport. This is in response to the canvassing of
opinion, which started in March 2009. In this letter, I will state many good reasons why this is not in the best interest of the airport, and the community at large.
Firstly, let's look at the simple practicality of transport links to London Southend Airport. Currently, the roads in and around the Southend area in a constant state of gridlock. The increase in holiday and freight traffic would only compound this. Southend's infrastructure could not cope with the planned two million additional passengers and countless additional freight vehicles. It is suggested that people will come by rail using the new airport station; however any suggestion of this is pure fantasy. As you should be aware, we are a nation of car users. There is also not the space for any road expansion or parking.
Secondly, the church on Eastwoodbury Lane, St Laurence and All Saints, according to the proposal is safe. Previously, plans were drawn up to 'move' or destroy this Grade 1 listed building as it was in the way of the required safety zones. It took a lot of fighting to save this building. Now there are plans to expand the airport. I do not believe that this church is safe.
This brings me to my third point. If the church is not safe, neither is the graveyard, which includes an ashes plot. This could obviously not be moved. Also, located in this graveyard are numerous war graves dating from the time of the Great War, through the period when Southend Airport was Royal Air Force Rochford, to the present day. Desecration of this site would be seen by myself and the nation as a whole as criminal. The increase in traffic over the already cluttered skies of the South-East region would increase the likelihood of an air disaster. Honestly, I believe that Southend Airport is too poorly situated to be viable as a passenger airport. I believe that any plans of this nature are made by persons living with their heads in the clouds.

I am writing to express my objections and concerns over the propsed expansion of Southend Airport under its new owners, the Stobart Group. I believe expanding the airport to allow larger planes to land would have a huge negative impact on Leigh on Sea and the surrounding areas. Below I have listed a number of points which I believe need to be addressed before any proposal can be considered for approval.
The A127 is unable to cope with the current level of traffic (likewise the other main road, the A13) and so to add additonal passenger and freight travellers can only make matters worse. Does anyone really believe that the majority of these travellers will travel in by train? The proposed addition of a link road would do little to alleviate traffic levels more likely it would add to the disruption. I fail to see how this link road could be built without causing great inconvenience and the enforced relocation of a number of the residents of Eastwoodbury Lane. Any alternative route would plough through St Laurence Park, which many children and local residents use. This park was given to local people as compensation for the loss of land that was taken when the Royal Bank of Scotland built their new offices.
The flight path crosses six schools. Increased flights with larger aeroplanes would cause more disruption to classes, not to mention the safety aspect should one crash.
The noise impact on houses beneath and surrounding the flight path would be constant and unbearable. I also understand that an increase in night flights is predicted, and as a resident who lives directly under the flight path this would be unacceptable.
The pollution from increased flights cannot be ignored in an age when everyone seems to be giving lip service to 'reducing carbon footprints'. The pollution caused by increased flights does not help in the fight against global warming! I do not understand how Southend and Rochford Council's equate this with their campaign to reduce their constituent's carbon footprints by encouraging them to recycle rubbish, waste food, use public transport and bikes, insulate their homes, etc.
The pollution caused by the additional flights/larger aeroplanes would have a detrimental effect on the health of everyone living in the vicinity as well as leading to a reduction in air quality.
It should also be noted that in the current economic climate when many airlines are reducing passenger flights, is an expansion really necessary to such a small airport, especially one which is based in such a heavily populated residential area?
Incidentally, what does the Stobart Group propose to do regarding the inevitable loss of property value which will affect a huge number of people in the Leigh on Sea area and those living under/surrounding areas of the flight path? Are adequate provisions being made for these costs within their overall budget? It is only fair and proper that the owners of blighted properties are compensated for any loss of value they will inevitably experience.
I am sure you are aware that the NW expansion of the runway 15/33 was refused by the Government Inspectorate in 1966 on environmental grounds.
In summation, I believe the proposed expansion is ill conceived and not in the local resident's interest. Leigh on Sea is currently a lovely place to live and I am wholeheartedly against the proposed airport expansion.

I am writing to express my objections and concerns over the propsed expansion of Southend Airport under its new owners, the Stobart Group. I believe expanding the airport to allow larger planes to land would have a huge negative impact on Leigh on Sea and the surrounding areas. Below I have listed a number of points which I believe need to be addressed before any proposal can be considered for approval.
The A127 is unable to cope with the current level of traffic (likewise the other main road, the A13) and so to add additonal passenger and freight travellers can only make matters worse. Does anyone really believe that the majority of these travellers will travel in by train? The proposed addition of a link road would do little to alleviate traffic levels more likely it would add to the disruption. I fail to see how this link road could be built without causing great inconvenience and the enforced relocation of a number of the residents of Eastwoodbury Lane. Any alternative route would plough through St Laurence Park, which many children and local residents use. This park was given to local people as compensation for the loss of land that was taken when the Royal Bank of Scotland built their new offices.
The flight path crosses six schools. Increased flights with larger aeroplanes would cause more disruption to classes, not to mention the safety aspect should one crash.
The noise impact on houses beneath and surrounding the flight path would be constant and unbearable. I also understand that an increase in night flights is predicted, and as a resident who lives directly under the flight path this would be unacceptable.
The pollution from increased flights cannot be ignored in an age when everyone seems to be giving lip service to 'reducing carbon footprints'. The pollution caused by increased flights does not help in the fight against global warming! I do not understand how Southend and Rochford Council's equate this with their campaign to reduce their constituent's carbon footprints by encouraging them to recycle rubbish, waste food, use public transport and bikes, insulate their homes, etc.
The pollution caused by the additional flights/larger aeroplanes would have a detrimental effect on the health of everyone living in the vicinity as well as leading to a reduction in air quality.
It should also be noted that in the current economic climate when many airlines are reducing passenger flights, is an expansion really necessary to such a small airport, especially one which is based in such a heavily populated residential area?
Incidentally, what does the Stobart Group propose to do regarding the inevitable loss of property value which will affect a huge number of people in the Leigh on Sea area and those living under/surrounding areas of the flight path? Are adequate provisions being made for these costs within their overall budget? It is only fair and proper that the owners of blighted properties are compensated for any loss of value they will inevitably experience.
I am sure you are aware that the NW expansion of the runway 15/33 was refused by the Government Inspectorate in 1966 on environmental grounds.
In summation, I believe the proposed expansion is ill conceived and not in the local resident's interest. Leigh on Sea is currently a lovely place to live and I am wholeheartedly against the proposed airport expansion.

The favoured option is to increase the length of the runway to increase air traffic 2 million passengers a year in addition to increased freight flight. The location of the airport and the topography of the area do not make Southend airport suitable for such expansion. Indeed our roads cannot cope with any increase in traffic. Both the A13 and the A127 are at saturation point daily. Increase passenger services and freight which then needs to be moved around will be disastrous for our gridlock area. The geographical location of Southend stretching along the Thames Estuary means that the airport can only be accessed via the West (A13, A127) and beyond by the M25 which again is saturated at peak time. The proposal acknowledges the problem but fails to provide an answer. No mention of an upgrade to the 127. The reiterated suggestion that increase walking and cycling facilities might help sound ludicrous and look like a desperate attempt to find a solution to a problem that has none. The airport lies in the middle of a very densely populated area especially to the South which surprisingly is the route for take off. Unlike major airports it hasn't got a green protective belt to cater for emergencies. On take off planes fly at low level directly over houses not to mention most of our local schools. Where would they land or crash in case of emergency? There does not seem to be any room for error. On the subject of schools I would like to say that the recent increase in air traffic has already had a noticeable impact on the teaching in our local schools. The flight path takes planes over Blenheim, St Thomas More, Westcliff grammars, St Christopher, Our Lady of Lourdes, Darlinghurst, Westleigh, St Michael's, Eastwood, Kingsdown to name on a few and impact on many others. I am myself a teacher in one of these local schools and lessons have to be stopped because of the noise when large planes come in for landing. What impact will 40 planes a day have on the quality of education in our local schools? Is the council prepared to compromise and sacrifice the environement in which our children learn. Looking at the map provided in the JAAP it looks as if the areas directly to the North of the airport are actually a lot less populated than the South. Why don't planes take off and land that way which means taking off over flat ground rather than the ridge that lies to the South of the airport. The JAAP states that the council is committed to preserving the quality of life of its residents and making living in "The Town Desirable". How can this be compatible with noise, increase in traffic, pollutiion and nuisance to the people living under the flight path or our children at school without mentioning the disappearance of our greenbelt. The council will on the opposite spoil irreversibly what is at the moment a very pleasant seaside resort. Who needs yet another airport when the South East already has five major airports on its doorstep. At a time when Climate Change and reducing carbon emissions have become a priority how can the council justify backing such a proposal.

It is my belief that some form of expansion at the Airport will most certainly go ahead and one can only try to mitigate the effect that this will have on the local residents. In this regard I would comment as follows.
I am concerned about the increased traffic flow on the A127 and feeder roads which appear totally inadequate to cater for the additional vehicular traffic, what measures are going to be put in place to address this?
No figures have been given for 'night flights' is it not possible to establish a limit on such flights before approval is given?

The location of my property is under the flight path and the assertion in the documentation that aircraft will be quieter and arrangements are in hand to minitor noise is of no comfort. We already have large and medium sized aircraft flying low overhead causing disruption to conversation and pollution. The majority of this traffic is commercial either for cargo or regular maintenance. I would assume this lucrative part of the airports business would not cease thereby nullifying the previous statement. In the past complaints to the Airport Duty Air Traffic Controller concerning particularly low noisey aircraft have been answered by saying the aircraft was within the height requirements etc, so I have some soubts about this particular mission statement. The question of possible disaster also seems to have been conveniently forgotton. It has to be accepted that this is true of any modern day activity but aircraft from Southend fly over a densely populated area that has a number of schools with large pupil concentration and a large hospital. Extra passenger flights will increase this risk.
In another extract from the letter I stated:- 'There is no doubt that jobs are very important in today's economic climate'. The JAAP document is an attempt to set out valid reasons for the preferred options but in doing so leaves the reader with a sense that the justifaction for these options addresses many of the issues without offerring convincing solutions.
A detailed analysis of the JAAP does nothing to alter the opinions expressed before but I give below an updated summary for my objection the new proposals which are:-
1. Increased aircraft noise and pollution from the additional flights planned. The aircraft will still fly over the areas referred to in 2003 and probably lower because of the increased runway.
2. Increased road traffic. There are only two major arteries into Southend, the A13 and the A127. Without major alterations to these already congested roads any planned additional road links within Southend's boundaries will not be effective.
3. Devaluation of property values. There is no mention in the documentation of an intention to address this aspect.
4. Safety. the proposed lengthening of the runway will decrease the safety zone in relation to aircraft on take off and landing unless there are plans to deal with this aspect.
As in 2003 jobs are important especially in the present economic conditions but the disruption and degradation in the quality of life to a vast number of residents who will be affected by increased flights despite reference in the JAAP to controlling and monitoring the operation of the airport outweigh the advantages of a privately owned airport which has a commercial objective of making a profit. The reference to the number of night flights allowed is also vague and the commercial benefits of aircraft maintenance and freight transport are lucrative activities which could outweigh any intention to implement the policy on a regular basis.

I am writing to you to express my objections to the proposed expansion of Southend Airport. After visiting many of the proposed 'consultation surgeries' organised by Southend council, and looking into the proposals myself, I have concluded what I thought all along that it is poorly thought out, totally inappropriate for the surrounding areas, and severely detrimental to the local population, schools, protected country parks, property market etc. etc. of the Southend area. I think the full scale expansion of the airport would have far more negative effect on the local area than positive. I currently have a petition with two hundred names gathered in just two hours work, with plenty more to come who agree with me.
An extension of the airport was already rejected in 1966 on the grounds that it was too environmentally unfriendly, and today we have a government that is meant to be doing all it can to cut its carbon footprint.
Whilst I appreciate some expansion to the works units at the airport and some of the lower growth proposals are sustainabe and could bring some positive aspects to the local area, the extension of the runway would be catastrophic. The figures banded around as 'jobs that will be created' is total fictional. The number of jobs per million passengers the airport say they will create is far higher than any other airport has so why would Southend be any different to them. There is in fact no proof what so ever to say that any jobs created will even go to local people, after all the Stobbart group is already well established in the haulage and freight business with plenty of contacts nationally, I am sure they already have companies and people in mind to fill what little jobs will be available. As I am aware Southend airport has recently made people redundant as has Ipeco and Flightline another company at the airport has gone into administration. It appears there is already not much demand for industry at the airport.
I believe Southend have claimed that they aim to be like some other airports in the country possibly Cardiff, Carlisle, Norwich and Southempton. If you look on Google earth at these airports you can see the proximity of houses, schools shops etc is a lot further away from the airport. In some cases there is not a house in sight. The proposal to extend the runway at Southend would see it start, or finish, ridiculously at best dangerously at worst close to a whole host of houses.
The majority of the flights it seems will be freight flights which have little restrictions at night. Freighters tend to be older, noisier and probably more polluting. Not only are they flying directly over towns at about on 300ft a mile from the runway, but directly over many schools (which will be disrupted). Leigh on Sea's historic fishing port which is somewhat of a tourist spot for the local area, 400 acres of Hadleigh castle country park and miles of internationally protected wetlands and coast. How many people will want to come to Leigh old town or the beach or to the English heritage site of Hadleigh castle with planes roaring in dumping fuel every 10 minutes?
In order to expand as they wish they will need to build on greenbelt land. I am interested in how this is possible. For I have earmarked out a few spots of greenbelt for myself. I should like to build a house to move into should this expansion go ahead, providing I can find someone daft enough to buy my house that is although it will probably be at least a third cheaper than it stands today. I presume the laws protecting greenbelt land are irrelevant as I presume most other developers in the area will think once the airport has developed on it, I wonder where or what will be built on next? Whilst I am at it I am considering building a private tunnel from Basildon/Pitsea to my road, as at certain times of the day the A127 and A13 are already congested you need to double, sometimes triple your journey time and if the sun is shining during the weekend you may as well walk. As there is no possible way of expanding either of these roads or any of the already saturated infrastructures leading to Southend.
With 2 million passengers, freight and haulage trucks on the road and whatever other traffic the airport will bring the whole area will be gridlocked. On the bright side I guess there will be a lot less tourists in the area with large planes looming in on the skyline flying low overhead creating so much noise and pollution, that will spoil their day.

In common with many other people living under the airport flight path in Leigh we are very concerned about the current proposal to extend the runway in order to accommodate larger aircraft.
If the predicted passenger numbers materialise then we can expect to endure the noise of aircraft above our house every 10 minutes during the day, possibly even more frequently given recent figures obtained from Southampton Airport, which caters for similar passenger numbers. In addition, the acquisition of the Airport by the Stobart Group means they will be able to operate freight flights whenever they choose during the night. Despite claims that larger, modern aircraft are quieter and less polluting, they will not be noiseless or pollution-free so for those living under the flight path the situation will become intolerable, there will be no peace, day or night.
We moved to Leigh in 2005 thinking that it would be a pleasant area in which to retire. We also anticipated that if, as we got older, we needed to downsize or to fund residential care, then we would be able to sell the house, which as for many people, is our main asset. If the Airport proposals go ahead then our house will be at best devalued, and at worst impossible to sell.
We also have concerns about the increased volume of traffic which will need to use the A127. The proposals include new roads in the immediate vicinity of the Airport but these will not address the congestion that frequently occurs on the A127 to the west of the town. This will only get worse if air passengers choose to travel to Southend by car as seems likely, despite the provision of a new station at the Airport. Gatwick also has good rail links but millions of passenger still prefer to use their cars.
Any increase in activity at the Airport will inevitably have an impact on the environment. The Government's own website (Directgov-Environment and greener living-Air travel and the environment) counsels us all to fly less. How can this be reconciled with the proposed Airport developments?

Why is it call London Southend Airport? The site is situated in Essex and is not under the jurisdiction of London, nor indeed Westminster.
Height of craft. Having lived in the 'flight footnote' (not even the flightpath) I can tell you that the pilots can be seen clearly and in detail, and the craft appear to be skimming the rooftops.
Why would Eddie Stobart purchase the airport without certain guarantees in place? Has he been told that the extension would be approved?
Noise. Already Certain Schools in the area have to stop lessons while aircraft fly over. A measure that has been suggested is that double glazing be installed. What happens on hot days, field trips, or using their own playgrounds and fields? Must all residents take such measures, and at who's cost? When the planes are taking off every 5-10 minutes does this mean we have to run indoors and shut all our double glazed units to get any peace?
Schools. It has been proven by a study undertaken by St Bartholomew's Hospital and the NHS Trust (find on the internet under BBC news-health reports) that children living near an airport suffer from an average 8 months delay in the projected, and expected, work performance. Also 'increased levels of exposure to both aircraft and traffic noise was associated with additional stress in children and a reduced quality of life'
Flying times. Passenger flights are projected to increase from 30,000 to 2 million (nearly 700%) In Southampton (who fly 1.96 million passengers) that equates to a flight every 5 minutes in peak times. This airport does not fly cargo and is allowed on 10 night flights amonth, in case of emergencies and delays. Southend already has permission for 915 night flights (cargo) a month. This equates to roughly every 20 minutes.
Pollution. We are told that the new craft will be more fuel efficient etc. With an increase of flights (700% passenger + cargo flights) this is all negligible. The UK Government has already accepted that far more significant cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be required. The Climate Change Act sets legally binding targets for reducing GHG emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 and by at least 26% by 2020.
Not only will there be an increase of 700% on passenger flights and the 915 night flights, air traffic will be increased with the ' proposed expansion of maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) business'.
Rail Link. The Liverpool street line runs adjacent to the airport and it is suggested that another station be 'inserted' on this line. No mention has been made about improving this track/link/line. It's not so long ago that people lost out on jobs in the City because of the notoriety of our 'Misery Lines'
Road Congestion. Where do you start? The A13 is not an A road into the town, you have to travel out to the A130 before it becomes such. The A127 is hell (no other word for it) and is the only direct access to and from the town. Both these roads feed directly onto the M25, or continue in heavy congestion into London. In the National press, dated 26.4.09, the worst 10 worst roads in Britain were listed. No 1 was - M25 Heathrow to M1, No 4 was - M25 Essex to Kent Dartford crossing. At Southend the A127 terminates at Cuckoo Corner, where you have three options. 1. Sit in traffic on Victoria Avenue, 2. Sit in traffic on Priory Crescent or 3. Turn into Manner Way where you'll reach another roundabout where you can sit in more traffic. Laughably, this is also the entrance to the Airport Trading Estate! The 'New ' road which will pass from Nestuda Way to Eastwoodbury Lane is not a new road, but a diversion as we will loose part of Eastwoodbury Lane to the extension. It's clear to me that the people proposing more traffic influx into this town do not travel on it's already over congested roads which cannot deal with the traffic already using them. God forbid you go out in rush hour or if there is an accident!
S.E.R.T (Southe East Rapid Transport). In the leaflet put through my door (in conjunction with the proposed runway extension) it stated that new bus lanes could be built to acommodate these vehicles. My question simply is: Where? Priority would be given to these vehicles, and traffic lights altered to speed their journey: How? They've got to get through the traffic. Who's ging to pay for this?
New Jobs. You quote that there will be 7,380 new jobs in the JAAP. We are told that the majority of these will be provided through the business park's development. In these financially insecure times, who's going to lease these businesses premises? also a great number of these businesses are going to be relocated from the Eldon Way Industrial Estate which is to be demolished: therefore they are not new jobs. You quote 1,180 new jobs are to be found within the airport, which has been calculated by using the equation 1 million passengers = 1000 jobs. Luton airport also used this 'rule of thumb' in reality it worked out at only 100 jobs. In December 2008 Flightline, who operate out of Southend airport made 235 redundancies, and Ipeco (the biggest employer at the airport) made 30 jobs redundant last year. The 'High Growth' area of the proposed expansion is where the flight clubs and B52 bar are situated, more closures? Will the workforces who are employed to carry out this extension be sourced from the local area? I don't think so. When work is complete these jobs will also disappear. We can only assume that Mr Eddie Stobart will undoubtedly bring his own workers with him. (And his fleet of lorries!) Where are all these jobs?
Previous Extension Proposals. The runway expansion was refused by 'the government inspectorate' in 1966 on environmental grounds. If anything surely this environmental issues have intensified with the growth of the town. Also on 15.12.2004 Andrew Walters (chairman of Southend airport) published a paper on another proposed extension. 5 options were submitted to comply with the CAA Industry Regulations. All of these options were dismissed, and ultimately:- 'Southend Council voted unanimously to reject a plan to widen Southend Airport'. What's changed?
One of the rejected proposals was to move St Laurence Church. Not only is this structure one of the oldest in Southend, its symbol (The Iron Grid) actually makes up part of Southend Boroughs coat-of-arms. Must we loose our heritage too?
Cherry Orchard Country Park. The powers that be have noticed that huge amounts of green track land will be swallowed by the extension, and have offered us Cherry Orchard Park. It will incorporate a cycle path (how do you get to it - no other cycle path links - will the employees of the airport 'park and ride' with their bikes so they can use this path?. I can envisage hundred of families running the gamut of the A127 and its choking fumes to reach the park, where they can relax to the quite sounds of nature and jet engines. You call it a 'Green Lung' area; I cannot think of a more erroneous name for it, 'Black Lung' or 'Cough up Park' seem more apt.
House Prices. In these already troubled times, when money has been lost on our properties due to the credit crunch, we are also disturbingly being told by estate agents that we need to drop £25 - £30,000 off our property prices because of the proposed runway extension. How much more will the prices drop if this actually goes ahead? Even if we wanted to move away from the area to escape the runway, who can afford these sort of loses?
What about the Airshow? Will Southend be able to accommodate this event?
The Ariel shots of the runway are all taken towards Rochford, can we have some more relevant views of the other end, towards the densely populated areas.
I believe I have made my feelings clear, but in a nutshell the area is already struggling with its overpopulation, and the infrastructure that this entails. It seems to me that the residents of these towns, who don't want the expansion, also face the added indignity of having to pay for it in our rates. Surely the money expended on this proposal would be better spend on sorting the towns existing problems, not adding to them.

Why is it call London Southend Airport? The site is situated in Essex and is not under the jurisdiction of London, nor indeed Westminster.
Height of craft. Having lived in the 'flight footnote' (not even the flightpath) I can tell you that the pilots can be seen clearly and in detail, and the craft appear to be skimming the rooftops.
Why would Eddie Stobart purchase the airport without certain guarantees in place? Has he been told that the extension would be approved?
Noise. Already Certain Schools in the area have to stop lessons while aircraft fly over. A measure that has been suggested is that double glazing be installed. What happens on hot days, field trips, or using their own playgrounds and fields? Must all residents take such measures, and at who's cost? When the planes are taking off every 5-10 minutes does this mean we have to run indoors and shut all our double glazed units to get any peace?
Schools. It has been proven by a study undertaken by St Bartholomew's Hospital and the NHS Trust (find on the internet under BBC news-health reports) that children living near an airport suffer from an average 8 months delay in the projected, and expected, work performance. Also 'increased levels of exposure to both aircraft and traffic noise was associated with additional stress in children and a reduced quality of life'
Flying times. Passenger flights are projected to increase from 30,000 to 2 million (nearly 700%) In Southampton (who fly 1.96 million passengers) that equates to a flight every 5 minutes in peak times. This airport does not fly cargo and is allowed on 10 night flights amonth, in case of emergencies and delays. Southend already has permission for 915 night flights (cargo) a month. This equates to roughly every 20 minutes.
Pollution. We are told that the new craft will be more fuel efficient etc. With an increase of flights (700% passenger + cargo flights) this is all negligible. The UK Government has already accepted that far more significant cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be required. The Climate Change Act sets legally binding targets for reducing GHG emissions in the UK by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 and by at least 26% by 2020.
Not only will there be an increase of 700% on passenger flights and the 915 night flights, air traffic will be increased with the ' proposed expansion of maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) business'.
Rail Link. The Liverpool street line runs adjacent to the airport and it is suggested that another station be 'inserted' on this line. No mention has been made about improving this track/link/line. It's not so long ago that people lost out on jobs in the City because of the notoriety of our 'Misery Lines'
Road Congestion. Where do you start? The A13 is not an A road into the town, you have to travel out to the A130 before it becomes such. The A127 is hell (no other word for it) and is the only direct access to and from the town. Both these roads feed directly onto the M25, or continue in heavy congestion into London. In the National press, dated 26.4.09, the worst 10 worst roads in Britain were listed. No 1 was - M25 Heathrow to M1, No 4 was - M25 Essex to Kent Dartford crossing. At Southend the A127 terminates at Cuckoo Corner, where you have three options. 1. Sit in traffic on Victoria Avenue, 2. Sit in traffic on Priory Crescent or 3. Turn into Manner Way where you'll reach another roundabout where you can sit in more traffic. Laughably, this is also the entrance to the Airport Trading Estate! The 'New ' road which will pass from Nestuda Way to Eastwoodbury Lane is not a new road, but a diversion as we will loose part of Eastwoodbury Lane to the extension. It's clear to me that the people proposing more traffic influx into this town do not travel on it's already over congested roads which cannot deal with the traffic already using them. God forbid you go out in rush hour or if there is an accident!
S.E.R.T (Southe East Rapid Transport). In the leaflet put through my door (in conjunction with the proposed runway extension) it stated that new bus lanes could be built to acommodate these vehicles. My question simply is: Where? Priority would be given to these vehicles, and traffic lights altered to speed their journey: How? They've got to get through the traffic. Who's ging to pay for this?
New Jobs. You quote that there will be 7,380 new jobs in the JAAP. We are told that the majority of these will be provided through the business park's development. In these financially insecure times, who's going to lease these businesses premises? also a great number of these businesses are going to be relocated from the Eldon Way Industrial Estate which is to be demolished: therefore they are not new jobs. You quote 1,180 new jobs are to be found within the airport, which has been calculated by using the equation 1 million passengers = 1000 jobs. Luton airport also used this 'rule of thumb' in reality it worked out at only 100 jobs. In December 2008 Flightline, who operate out of Southend airport made 235 redundancies, and Ipeco (the biggest employer at the airport) made 30 jobs redundant last year. The 'High Growth' area of the proposed expansion is where the flight clubs and B52 bar are situated, more closures? Will the workforces who are employed to carry out this extension be sourced from the local area? I don't think so. When work is complete these jobs will also disappear. We can only assume that Mr Eddie Stobart will undoubtedly bring his own workers with him. (And his fleet of lorries!) Where are all these jobs?
Previous Extension Proposals. The runway expansion was refused by 'the government inspectorate' in 1966 on environmental grounds. If anything surely this environmental issues have intensified with the growth of the town. Also on 15.12.2004 Andrew Walters (chairman of Southend airport) published a paper on another proposed extension. 5 options were submitted to comply with the CAA Industry Regulations. All of these options were dismissed, and ultimately:- 'Southend Council voted unanimously to reject a plan to widen Southend Airport'. What's changed?
One of the rejected proposals was to move St Laurence Church. Not only is this structure one of the oldest in Southend, its symbol (The Iron Grid) actually makes up part of Southend Boroughs coat-of-arms. Must we loose our heritage too?
Cherry Orchard Country Park. The powers that be have noticed that huge amounts of green track land will be swallowed by the extension, and have offered us Cherry Orchard Park. It will incorporate a cycle path (how do you get to it - no other cycle path links - will the employees of the airport 'park and ride' with their bikes so they can use this path?. I can envisage hundred of families running the gamut of the A127 and its choking fumes to reach the park, where they can relax to the quite sounds of nature and jet engines. You call it a 'Green Lung' area; I cannot think of a more erroneous name for it, 'Black Lung' or 'Cough up Park' seem more apt.
House Prices. In these already troubled times, when money has been lost on our properties due to the credit crunch, we are also disturbingly being told by estate agents that we need to drop £25 - £30,000 off our property prices because of the proposed runway extension. How much more will the prices drop if this actually goes ahead? Even if we wanted to move away from the area to escape the runway, who can afford these sort of loses?
What about the Airshow? Will Southend be able to accommodate this event?
The Ariel shots of the runway are all taken towards Rochford, can we have some more relevant views of the other end, towards the densely populated areas.
I believe I have made my feelings clear, but in a nutshell the area is already struggling with its overpopulation, and the infrastructure that this entails. It seems to me that the residents of these towns, who don't want the expansion, also face the added indignity of having to pay for it in our rates. Surely the money expended on this proposal would be better spend on sorting the towns existing problems, not adding to them.

1. The proposed development can only bring prosperity to the local community if the majority of the anticipated employment is for local people. Can local residents be assured that this will happen? Have procedures been established to streamline the matching of job opportunities to recruitment of local residents seeking employment.
2. The proposal assumes that employees at the airport will arrive on foot or cycle. This will definitely not be the case if jobs are not filled by local people. But given our climate, and people's natural aspirations, it is unrealistic to assume that more than a small minority of employees will walk or cycle to work. Have any surveys of existing employees at the airport or in Aviation Way been carried out as to how they commute to work? Essex County Council has now acknowledged that our Government's policies to restrict the number of motorists are nonsense and has decided to ignore them. It was these policies that created garages too small to house cars and the ridiculous situation whereby RBS were not allowed, or even encouraged, to create enough car parking spaces for the staff at their new card centre near Netsuda Way. Since then local residents have been complaining bitterly about RBS employee's cars littering the streets because there is no room for them to park at their place of employment. The result of these policies has been inconvenience for workers faced with a long walk at the start and finish of work and annoyance for the residents. It is essential that the Councils realistically assess the car parking facilities needed and ensure that these are provided.
3. Apart from the new railway station car park and the park and ride facility there is no mention of parking facilities for airport or business park employees, or for the two million new passengers. We need to follow the lead of Essex County Council and take a more realistic approach to motorists and so parking proposals need to be much more specific. If Southend is to become a regional hub for European flights we must have forecasts as to how many travellers will use public transport and how many will want to park their cars on-site. Parking provision should then be created accordingly. Policy LS2 talks of modal split targets. What are they and how do they relate to the present day?
4. During the discussions regard the new Southend football stadium there was much talk of park and ride facilities. To date the first definate proposal for a park and ride site is the one shown on the plan at Netsuda Way. The area of this site is not large and there is no mention as to whether this facility is intended for:-
1. Airport off-site short/long term parking
2. Short term car parking for central Southend shoppers
3. Short term parking for football supporters attending the new stadium
4. Any other purpose
Without knowing the intended purpose, the anticipated demand or capacity of the park and ride facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility need to be provided. There also needs to be further discussion as to the siting of this facility. Presumably no access from the eastbound lane of the A127 has been included because there are already traffic problems at the Southbourne Grove exit. But the Tesco/RBS roundabout is already sufering gridlock at times and introducing further queuing at a new roundabout only 300 metres away in Netsuda Way will add to the traffic congestion in this area.
5. Under 'Vision and Objectives' the document states....there is a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings to achieve measurable improvements in the town's economic prosperity, transportation networks, infrastructure and facilities, and the quality of life for all its citizens. It is hard to know what this sentence is trying to say but surely it is more important to release the potential of the town's workforce than land and buildings? The next paragraph goes on to mention SO11...providing for significant new employment opportunities and improved surface access. The only way that will happen on anything other than a short term basis is by radically upgrading the road infrastructure in the area.
Southend has long been in need of a completely new east-west highway to the north of the A127, linking the A130 to Great Wakering with north-south feeder links into the various districts of Southend. To date, the Council has never requested such a new road from Essex County Council despite the fact that County Hall has said it has no objection to such a scheme. The result of this neglect of our road infrastructure has been the steady loss of thousands of jobs every year from Southend to Basildon and other areas with better road links. The only new road envisaged in these proposals is a link from Eastwoodbury Lane to Netsuda Way and the only justification for this new piece of road is that the extended runway will go over the old road. Other than that we are promised the usual improvements to foothpaths and cycleways. It is high time Southend Council got a grip on the reality of the situation that, apart from London workers, the overwhelming majority of people commuting to work in south-east Essex are car drivers and therefore road users. Southend residents and visitors to the town deserve better than having to queue on the A127 every time they want to travel. Without adequate roads and adequate car parking any expansion of the airport is doomed to merely create more chaos in the town.
6. The document contains no discussion as to why the existing Eastwoodbury Lane route cannot simply be replaced in a tunnel under the runway at the same site. We understand that there is concern that this route would be directly beneath the impact point of landing planes but there must be some merit in considering tunnelling 100-150 metres distant. Given the amount of concrete being used for the new runway it would surely be cheaper to keep as closely as possible to the present route in this manner rather than creating a new road that involves a one mile detour for anyone accessing Aviation Way from the east. If Eastwoodbury Lane were tunnelled it would also be an opportunity to expand the length of dual carriageway from the northern end of Nestuda Way. The new road as shown would terminate at a new roundabout only some 300 metres distant from the one at the southern end of Netsuda Way. This roundabout is already regularly gridlocked and so another new junction in such close proximity will only add to the existing traffic chaos. The document also says that a contribution for the construction will be sought from the developer but since the road is a direct replacement to enable the runway to be lengthened then the developer should pay the whole cost of construction.
7. Under 2.3 the document states...a modern terminal building...with fast road access to the A127. Is Southend Council envisaging increasing the current speed limit of 30mph between these two points? Even if they were, there seems little point in so doing since speedy arrival at the A127 would only equate to a rush to get into the usual gridlock. There is no point in having in fast road access to a heavily congested route where motorists travel daily at walking pace.
8. Section 3 Issue 4 raises a number of questions. There are no details of proposed SERT routes and these need to be provided. At the very least the SERT transport system should be fully integrated into public transport links from the airport to the town centre.
Once again there is a return to fantasy with the statement 'Opportunities to encourage a modal shift to reduce current levels of car borne traffic...John Prescott said something similar in 1997 and despite his aspirations the number of cars on the roads has increased annually ever since. Will all Council employees undertake to walk, cycle or use public transport to work in all weathers for the next 12 months? Try persuading them. Yet the public are constantly being pressurised by those in authority with statements and wish-lists this like this. Why should people be expected to take an uncomfortable means of transport to work and quite possibly ruin decent office clothing when it rains when their motivation to work hard has been to avoid this sort of discomfort? The statement continues ...'through traffic management solutions....' A traffic management solution by definition would speed the flow of cars whilst allowing for an increase in volume of traffic. Your 'solution' as written would seek to place further obstacles in the way of drivers in order to try and discourge them from using the roads which is totall unacceptable. You then state'...improvements to public transport...'If you mean that public transport would be so improved as to make car travel second choice this is unlikely in the extreme. This same statement carries on'...improvements to walking and cycling facilities'. As stated previously, improvements like these will be of no consequence to the vast majority of residents.
The next statement concerns amongst others 'the provision of new routes' but gives no indication as to where these may be planned for. The illustrated extension to Eastwoodbury Lane could hardly be considered a new route. Once again there is a paucity of detail and there is no mention of the desperately needed new east-west trunk road.
9. The London Southend Airport Introduction, Page 20 states in paragraph 4 that the transport infrastructure is at present inadequate to cope with expansion of the airport. It describes the proximity of the airport to the A127 as being close to a strong connection (part of the south Essex's strategic highway network) which would be laughable were the daily reality of this route not so tragic. As previously stated, there is no point in anyone rushing from the airport straight into gridlock. As for rushing to the airport, the prospect becomes ever more terrible with the recent introduction of a 50mph limit over a 4 miles section of the A127 that had been 70mph for the previous 50 years. Presumably this is part of the traffic management solution as described earlier. Road, cycleway and pavement improvements, as described will make absolutely no difference whatever to the speed of access or egress and these comments are inserted so airily as to confirm that there is absolutely no grasp of the reality of the subject under discussion. Put simply; our existing road system is totally inadequate; people are not going to stop driving their cars; there will definitely be more cars on our roads in 12 months time; we need a new east-west trunk route to the north of the A127. We simply cannot afford to have any further developments or expansions in this borough until we have a new road.
10 Whilst the document acknowledges shortcomings in the road infrastructure there is no mention of the pressures this development will place on other aspects of the overall infrastructure. Two million passengers a year translates into greater demand for medical facilities and these are already at full stretch in this area. The new terminal will need adequate toilet facilities for 5,000 plus travellers a day but Southend's Environmental Director has recently told us that waste water treatment and drainage is at capacity.
11. The new terminal as illustrated on the site plan appears very small when compared to the retail outlets nearby. Will it be big enough?
12. Will the new railway station have lifts to ensure easy access to both platforms for travellers with luggage as well as for the disabled? Will similar facilities be installed at all other stations on the Liverpool Street line? Will travellers to the new station be offered cheap fares? If they are not, the the Councils must be aware that the majority of travellers will prefer to either drive themselves and park at the airport or use a taxi. either way there will be more car traffic. The current economics are such that it is far cheaper and easier for a group of four people with luggage to take a taxi from as far afield as Wickford rather than use the train.
13. Transport within the JAAP refers to increased investment in the local highways network. We need a great deal more than the proposed upgrades for any airport expansion to be viable.
14. The application is detrimental to the environment if there is an increase in the number of night flights over and above the current level which is approximately 100 per night/week/month? Residents will want assurance that this number will not be increased.
15. The overall impact of this project could potentially be monstrous. Can the Councils guarantee that the environment and local communities will be protected?
16. If the airport expansion proceeds the Councils will need to guarantee the protection of St Lawrence Church.
17. Has the possibility of increased noise levels on landing and takeoff been sufficiently appraised to avoid loss of amenity to local residents? The noise footprint as illustrated for the purpose of describing the noise from the new quieter jets may be irrelevant if noiser aircraft are allowed access to the airport because of the increase in runway length. If such aircraft are allowed then we need another footprint plan drafted. Some information is required as to the likely noise impact of increasing the airport capacity to 2 million people per annum. Residents can have no appreciation of the impact without providing noise contours and noise levels as between now and the capped limit. Furthermore it cannot be the case that some additional open space can mitigate the environmental impact. A more honest approach is necessary to put in context the additional noise, disturbane, smells, traffic dangers and congestion which residents will have to endure.
18. Will there be a re-appraisal of the viability of this project in light of the recent budget increase in air passenger duty?
Southend has long been overdue a radical overhaul of infrastructure - particularly of our roads. Residents are sick to death of the constant hot air about 'improvements to foothpaths and cycleways' especially when they waste hours every week crawling along the A127. There is now a very strong opinion throughout this town that there should be no further development of any sort until our Council has commenced construction of a new east-west trunk road to the north of the A127.
Contrary to commonsense and against the wishes of the majority of the town's resident's the Council has forged ahead with massive overdevelopment in recent years. The Council has recently stated that a more considered view of expansion will be taken in future. Perhaps it should start now by expending some real effort on a proper set of plans for a decent infrastructure for the town and its residents.
Provided the noise and environmental issues were properly addressed and we had a decent infrastructure in place it is likely that the majority of us would welcome an expanded airport that afforded us the opportunity to jet off all over Europe from our doorstop. However, given our current circumstances the proposal is a wish too far. Before continuing discussion regarding expansion of the airport we need more information as requested in the foregoing. We would also earnestly request that Southend Council commence urgent discussions about the radical improvements we need for our road infrastructure; that is a new east-west trunk road.