Issue 5

Overall I think the proposals are acceptable. However, I would like to see efforts made to accomodate the existing local flying clubs on the airport site as they have been part of the airport for so long.

Are the brickworks cottages part of the original brickworks site? If they are then I believe that they should be preserved. At the turn of the century brick making, after farming, was the biggest industry in our area. Development since the 1930's has already seen the other sites built on and this is the sole remaining site. It should be entirely possible to plan around these buildings.

Rumours from airport workers suggest that the RBS building is going to become a terminal - is there any truth in this?

Why extend the runway - it only means there will be more derelict runway after the games?

The implications of many of these Preferred options need closer scrutiny before decisions are made. We do not like the proposal to use the flying club strip as the passenger focus for the airport. There is a need to preserve valued facilities wherever possible and the flying clubs should remain or be reallocated to a comparable site. Maybe there is a need to improve the facilities for the small flying clubs in the area?

Issue 5

Area i

This former Brickworks site has the potential for contamination that may affect controlled waters. If this site is redeveloped then, ccording to Paragraph 2.43 of Annex 2 of PPS23, as a minimum, a desktop study should be completed. This study must include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information. Using this information, a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual Model) for the site must be produced to illustrate all the potential contaminant sources, pathways and receptors in order to fully assess the risk posed to the site.

If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem, a full site investigation should be completed and submitted along with a risk assessment and remediation Method Statements.

Disturbance of contaminated land can severely increase its polluting potential as contaminants may be washed on to other land or into surface and groundwater. The Agency acts to reduce possible pollution to land and water quality by advising on site contamination investigations.

Where land is affected by contamination, development can provide an opportunity to address the problem for the benefit of the wider community and bring the land back into beneficial use (PPS 23 para 17).

The potential for pollution affecting the use of land, e.g. for other development, is capable of being a material consideration in deciding whether to grant planning permission (PPS 23 para 2).

Area ii (b)

The Northern portion of this site, adjacent to the boundary, falls with Flood Zones 2 and 3.

The proposal to allocate this land as open space and for rugby pitches complies with the policies of PPS25. Development of this type fits within the Water compatible vulnerability classification within table D2 of PPS25.

Area ii (c)

We support the use of this land as a 'Green Lung'. All opportunities should be taken to enhance the biodiversity value of the land, in line with PPS9.

Part of this site falls within Flood Zones 2 & 3. In line with PPS25, built development would not be appropriate in this area, therefore we support the proposal to set aside this land for public open space and green links.

Area iii

The majority of this area falls within Flood Zones 2 & 3. I note that you intend to include this land within the airport boundary as land for MRO (Maintenance, repair and overhaul) purposes. It is unclear whether this will result in development of this site or not.

When allocating land within the flood risk areas, the sequential test of PPS25 must be applied. In order for the allocation to be appropriate, this test should demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in lower flood risk zones for this type of development.

If the allocation is carried forward to the final submission document without evidence that the sequential test has been applied, we would question the soundness of the allocation.

In order to be 'Sound', the allocation needs to be justified, based on a 'robust and credible evidence base' or 'the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives' (PPS12 para 4.51 - 4.53). It needs to be clear that the approach is the most appropriate given the alternatives and it needs to be clear how and why decisions have been made (in line with paras 2.8 & 2.9 of Examining Development Plan Documents: Soundness Guidance, PINS July 2008).

If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.


Area iv

Small parts to the south of this area, adjacent to Eastwood Brook, are within Flood Zones 2 & 3.

When allocating land within the flood risk areas, the sequential test of PPS25 must be applied. In order for the allocation to be appropriate, this test should demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in lower flood risk zones for this type of development.

If the allocation is carried forward to the final submission document without evidence that the sequential test has been applied, we would question the soundness of the allocation.

In order to be 'Sound', the allocation needs to be justified, based on a 'robust and credible evidence base' or 'the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives' (PPS12 para 4.51 - 4.53). It needs to be clear that the approach is the most appropriate given the alternatives and it needs to be clear how and why decisions have been made (in line with paras 2.8 & 2.9 of Examining Development Plan Documents: Soundness Guidance, PINS July 2008).

If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.

Where possible opportunities for redevelopment should be undertaken in the remaining part of the site that falls within flood zone 1.

Area vi

Small parts to the south of this area, adjacent to Eastwood Brook, are within Flood Zones 2 & 3.

When allocating land within the flood risk areas, the sequential test of PPS25 must be applied. In order for the allocation to be appropriate, this test should demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in lower flood risk zones for this type of development.

If the allocation is carried forward to the final submission document without evidence that the sequential test has been applied, we would question the soundness of the allocation.

In order to be 'Sound', the allocation needs to be justified, based on a 'robust and credible evidence base' or 'the most appropriate when considered against the reasonable alternatives' (PPS12 para 4.51 - 4.53). It needs to be clear that the approach is the most appropriate given the alternatives and it needs to be clear how and why decisions have been made (in line with paras 2.8 & 2.9 of Examining Development Plan Documents: Soundness Guidance, PINS July 2008).

If development can be deemed to be appropriate, then a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must demonstrate that the risk of flooding can be managed and the development will be safe.

Where possible opportunities for redevelopment should be undertaken in the remaining part of the site that falls within flood zone 1.

Area xi

The northern part of this site falls within Flood Zone 2. The remainder of the site is Flood Zone 1 and appropriate for the allocation of a new park and ride facility.

Any new development must be designed with adequate pollution control measures to prevent potential pollution events arising. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) can manage surface water runoff to reduce the risk of flooding and also create areas of open/green space that contribute to increased habitat and biodiversity, creating green links between sites.

support

You will be taking away football pitches to replace with a park and ride facility! So where do out local teams play their matches? This is a residential area with precious little for our children as it is and you want to take more away! This must not be allowed! This centre also holds youth clubs/a playschool/various other clubs and is used as a meeting centre - what about the jobs of the people working here?
For fat profit you will be destroying a centre used by the community! LEAVE IT ALONE!

I fully support all with the exception of Xi. Nestuda Way development would cause congestion for residents on Green Lane, Snakes Lane and Western Approaches estates which without extreme redevelopment of the road network would become jammed at peak periods.

You are taking away green belt land which is either used for leisure activities-walking-or sports. It is not being replaced. The damage caused to this rural area will be immense. It is arrogent to dismiss certain areas as having low amenity value, they shouldn't be removed but enhanced. You have ignored the existance of the tennis club-what else has been overlooked. Who is going to use the Park & Ride area-the businesses will have their own carparks.

Re Preferred Options decided by who?

Dear Sir

The airport can only expand in one direction - to the north and within a narrow corridor on the western side of the airfield. The present controlling nucleus of the airport is to the extreme south side of the field.

The area to the north of the airport that you intend to include within the airport's boundaries is therefore a considerable distance from the present control nucleus. Thus producing two separated areas; being vertually two islands of airport activity, separated still further by the runway, planned to be lengthened with its resited, longer connecting roads thus making these two separated islands of activity, one in the north, the main one in the south; even further apart and so will make operating this airport design inefficient and very costly to control plus obvious transportation problems.

Siting the rail station of the eastern boundary is easily reached using the airfield perimter road. Thus connecting sufficiently the controlling hub of the airport in the south with the rail station passengers. Through your design this would not be possible on the planned expansion area as no provision appears to include a perimeter road which'd reduce the area of expansion quite drastically. Resiting GREEN-BELT boundaries, to make a poor design for an airport to appear a little more attractive than it really is - TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!

The subject of the airports expected FREIGHT programme(s) are totally avoided! Why?

When was "extensive public consultation" carried out (Your Views 6.1). WHY is nobody, the public around the airport; aware of this?

Issue 3 Noise and air quality; to increased aircraft movements enhance each other! What plans can change this?

Issue 5 "Areas for Change" - needs to be directed at the above, visual and noise intrusion.

We would be losing usefull agricultural land as well as recreational areas.

I strongly object to the airport expansion plans in terms of impact of noise levels, incrrased aircraft flying too near to houses, pollution, impact on traffic in the Southend area and impact on house prices.

I do not think that the results from the current consultation will be fully representative of the southend and rochford populations and would like to see a reprentative independent survey conducted about such an important matter that will impact all of our lives.

Area iii is described as land adjacent to the airport boundary, but some of the land shown purple on the diagram is already within the airport boundary, and the remainder has now been leased to LSACL. While the western boundary of this area is naturally defined, the eastern boundary as shown on the diagram follows the line of an existing airside road. Our response to the Issues & Options consultation was that the boundary of this area should be the edge of the runway strip (150 metres from the runway centreline), as development may take place up to this line (albeit with height restrictions), as shown on the Block Land Use Plan of the Airport Master Plan. LSACL supports the Preferred Option for this area.

A small area at the north west corner of Area v is required to be included in the airport as part of the clear area associated with the runway extension. This includes the cottages located on the bend of Eastwoodbury Lane. It is suggested that this corner could be included in area x.

Also as noted in our comments on the I&O consultation, Area vi should go the edge of the runway strip.

Area vii is described as the Flying Club strip for which the preferred option is the location for the new terminal and railway station. This is supported, but it should be recognised that development of the terminal and rail station will require a much greater area than just area vii, as shown in the Airport Master Plan.

Similarly, the Southern Maintenance Zone could see development to the north of Area viii shown on the diagram.

Part of Area ix is shown in the Airport Master Plan as being part of the Passenger Terminal and Apron Zone and, as you are aware, LSACL has drawn up plans for this to be used as part of the multimodal transport interchange associated with the new terminal and rail station. The Preferred Option is to retain this area in the Green Belt as a green buffer between the Airport and residential properties to the east. However, the rail station, for which planning permission has been granted by Rochford District Council, includes an entrance on the eastern side which was intended to allow rail passengers from the residential areas and from the bus services on Southend Road to access the station. The interchange plan also includes car parking for the station so that rail passengers do not fly park in the adjacent residential area, which we understand to be a greater concern than any visual impact of the Airport. The Airport wishes to work with Rochford District Council to ensure that such fly parking does not occur, but the lack of a station car park will make this very difficult. The objective of achieving a buffer can be achieved by good landscaping within the design of this area.

object

I object. Airport expansion = bad for Southend and surrounding areas - we would suffer far lower house prices, fuel pollution, reduced profit from leisure and tourism, and the constant drone of freight planes day and night would be intolerable. What will local residents get to compensate for this massive blow? If I was a lawyer I would be putting together a case and getting thousands of signatories to sign up and claim compensation.

I object to changing any areas as a result of the expansion programme.

Object Issue 5: Tokenist gestures of a green 'lung' goes nowhere near the land losses/community ammenities that will be incurred if expansion goes ahead. Loss of The Flying Clubs, footbal pitches, green belt and agricultural land is totally unacceptable.

This is taking away far, far more than it is giving. That can't be right.

As someone who works in Southend and lives in Rochford, the economic and employment benefits of the airport development far outweigh any of the objections put forward.

Support the broad thrust of the zoning, but with caveats for areas ix) and xi)[see comments on individual sections ENV6 and T5}

Areas i, ii(a), ii(b), ii(c) and ii(d) should not change use as previously discussed.
Likewise, Area v's amenity value has been underestimated due to the presence of agricultural land, which will gain a great deal of value during the coming years.
While a Park and Ride facility is to be welcomed, its location in Area xi is not as it falls within the Public Safety Zone.
While it is recognised that planning permission has already been granted, area vii should not be used as a station due to the reasons previously noted, particularly the close proximity of Rochford station.

Any development should be within Airport boundaries
No green belt land should be given up
All development is kept within one boundary and open space separate.
Consideration should be given to retaining existing businesses.
There should be no loss of amenity to the local community.
Would prefer an underpass is constructed in Eastwoodbury Lane.
re. a Park and Ride, would severely impact on traffic flow at Tesco Roundabout.

Additional land adjacent to the airport is vital if the preferred option is to be successful. Any options to offer alternative local areas to greenbelt should be encouraged and pursued.

Any loss of open land is detrimental to the area particularly the loss of greenbelt of which there is very little in the area.

How many "London" airports do we need? We are a small island and seem bent on destroying our environment and disregarding the future of our descendants for economic reasons. We need to take a more long term approach. Although the argument is that we will be creating new jobs and relatively short-term economic prosperity we will be living in a noisy, polluted world and health will undoubtedly suffer. What's more important?

I am against any development that would impact or impose changes on Eastwood Church at the end of the runway as this is where generations of my family are buried.

It is not clear from your map/documents what the intentions are for the church.

We do not want or need the proposed expansion. The Green Belt should protect local residents and environment from such development.

I strongly object to the proposed Business Parks near Southend Airport being in linked with the proposed Airport Runway Extension.
There is no dependency between them suggested in either the new or old JAAP reports or anything else I have seen. According to the JAAP Report of the 7380 total jobs expected to be created 6200 jobs are due to the Business Parks, leaving only 1180 due to the Airport expansion. How many of these 1180 would be created without the runway extension is not given. These two proposals should be considered and voted on independently.

Fully support the recommendations.