Issue 5

I am totally opposed to London Southend going ahead as it will eventually mean constant noise in the surrounding area and congested traffic in spite of proposals for new access roads.

I am concerned for heavier planes landing and taking off over residential area. Cargo planes noise - although you say there will be restrictions. Pollution over residential area not wanted.

We need opportunity to object if noise level goes above the acceptable limit and objections to be listened to and acted upon.

We must allow for green open space. So much of this plan, whilst highlightinmg areas of poor character is open, breathing land, where wild life and grasses etc. thrive. We cannot afford to lose it.

Will a new railway station pose a threat to Rochford railway station? I.e. could Rochford railway station close as a consequence of a new station at the airport? If not, by how many minutes would the journey time from Southend Vic to Liverpool St increase due to an additional stop at the new station?

Plenty of vacant office areas that could be used, no need to build on green belt. The roads are congested enough without airport traffic. Why do we need another retail park? it's totally unnecessary. I also object to the traffic diversions by closing Eastwoodbury Lane. I really object to this expansion.

Seems like this has already been decided because work is already underway. How lucky for the Westcliff Rugby Club. They can get a good lungful of avaition fuel vapours as they play. Please note the sarcastic tone here.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Firstly, I responded to the original expansion plan document that had four choices, you have chosen the fourth choice but not explained why this was the preferred choice over the others.

I would like to know the number of responses you received and which options they chose.

Transport & Accessibility:
Bus Services: There is a bus service (No:9), which currently stops at the end of the Aviation Way Business Park, with your proposed rerouting this would become a dead end with no bus service?! Your proposed moving of Eastwoodbury Lane will mean this bus joining the dual carriageway of Nestuda Way which at peak times is heavily used and with traffic backups, this will NOT lead to the better flow of traffic you state but will cause more holdups. I personally use Eastwoodbury Lane daily and I shall be using a different route to my place of work, which will be longer and most costly, but still cheaper than a bus fare (have you used a bus yourself or have you any knowledge of their charges, exorbitant to say the least).

I don't understand the safeguarded route mentioned, the explanation of this proposal is not clear, it would be helpful if this were explained in plain English.

If the expansion goes ahead people intending to travel by plane from the airport will be using transport e.g. taxis/cars as nobody will be walking or riding a bike with suitcases!

Railway Station: I see you have chosen to ignore suggestions of a coach service. It has already been discussed and pointed out to the airport that commuter parking is not a feasible and safe option along Southend Road. Now you are proposing area xi to be a green buffer. Currently, the construction workers are concreting and cover it with tarmac, how is this green and allowed on what is termed green belt? What will the final area contain, would it be shrubs and trees etc.; I would also like there to be a proviso that this green buffer will be safe from a later planning application to change it in any way (e.g. commuter car parking) for at least 50 years. I attended a meeting with airport representatives present (I believe one of them was Mr Welch) who categorically stated that they would NOT build a railway station without a commuter car park being approved.

There are plenty of industrial/shopping estates in he area, namely Airports' own shopping area, Aviation Way, Laurence, Britannia Park, Temple Farm and Purdey Industrial Estate; and the currently expanding Fossett Way estate with new football ground, hotel and shopping areas to be added. The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do they want or need to increase the numbers, again it is likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.

Financial guarantees from 2/3 fixed base operators would need to be in place before any planning applications for expansion are agreed. This is particularly relevant at this time of economic constraints, Mail on Sunday this weekend (29th March) had an article stating 7 British airlines are in danger of going bust in the near future, this claim made by the expert Begbies Traynor, who also stated demand for flights has drastically fallen And carriers are frantically adjusting their capacity accordingly. Further stating the downturn is worsening, and that smaller airlines will undoubtedly fall. Another 16 airlines are said to be facing significant problems, including impending court actions and overdue accounts. The International Air Transport Association concluded airlines set to lose 3.3 billion a dramatic increase from the predicted 1.7 billion.

The 2012 Olympics may give a boost to business for that year only but this is surely not going to recoup the initial outlay.

The airport should NOT be looking for any public investment, as it cannot show any guaranteed financial returns.

Avionics technical advancement is consistently mentioned in the document with regard to potential noise and emission reductions, thereby not having a significant effect on the local area. Regardless, if with technical advancement we could also assume new aircraft being produced that can utilise the existing runway length thereby saving unnecessary expense.

The airport was purchased knowing the runway limitations and I don't see why the residents or local environment should suffer to assuage their greed.

I would appreciate an acknowledgement upon receipt of this email.

I will object to anything allowing this expansion of the airport to go ahead.

It depends on whether we should put short term profit for the investors in Southend Airport above all these other valuable and tangible assets that already exist here in the south east of England?

For these reasons and on other environmental and safety grounds, I object to the expansion of Southend Airport and hope that some other and more suitable development of it replaces this current idea.

realise the proposals below before changing the airports capacity, then locals might believe what the councils tell them!

The green lung comes at an unacceptable cost. The development of yet another business park takes even more business activity from the centre of southend. Recently Peugeot/ Toomey moved to off cherry orchard road. I no longer have my car serviced with peugeot as I cannot travel to and from the garage on public transport

This development is a disaster for the environment and will ruin the residents quality of life as we know it what a disaster.I strongly object to any of this development

Renaissance Southend Ltd supports the broad thrust of the preferred options regarding the area of change subject to deatiled comments elsewhere regarding specific policy areas.

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

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

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

Area ii(a) North of Aviation Wayis not suitable for employment expansion and should remain as agricultural land.
Area ii(d) South of Brickworks site, currently playing pitches is not suitable for class B1 development and should not be changed.
Area x RESA area safety zone to accomodate the runway extension. We oppose the extension to the runway
Area xi Land South west of Nestuda Way. Should remain as footbal pitches. Putting a park and ride facility for Southend here is ridiculous, encouraging cars to travel on increasingly congested roads to a parking area next to an airport

I do not agree with airport expansion or any of the related proposals.

Southend and Rochford Boroughs have alot of vacant brownfield sites which are in need of encouragement for redevelopment- most notably land adjacent to the Civic centre within easy reach of local transport links- and yet this document proposes amending the Metropolitan Green Belt Boundary to develop sites on open green space.
Metropolitan Green Belts have been an imporatant and successful part of planning policy since the 1940's. They have helped preserve wildlife, agricultrue, attractive landscape and outdoor recreation.
I oppose any development on Green Belt land and any loss of Metropolitan Green Belt will be harmful to the local area.

The green belt land should not be touched. There is no real need to provide more business parks or industrial estates within the area except perhaps for MRO operations.

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

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

I strongly object to the Southend Airport Expansion.
1. Because of pollution to our enviorement.
2. Noise and disruption to our lives.
3. Decline in value of our property which we have worked hard for all our life.
4. We live under the flight path in Leigh.

The green belt areas should remain as such and should not be considered for development. The park and ride facility will only encourage more vehicles on to the already over-loaded A127. Agricultural areas should remain as such.

I support all the preferred options, however, area V, I see no advantage to getting rid of the council allotments at the back of housing on Rochford Road, Southend. This area is a small corner plot, and would add no significant advantage to the preferred option. All other options have considerable advantage to the airport, residents, employment and transport. People will always go on holiday by plane, but using a local airpot will have some benefit to the environment.

As oil runs out and it becomes more and more expensive to import food and goods from abroad, this country will rely increasingly on agricultural land. It is not sensible, therefore, to put more of this essential asset under tarmac and concrete.

I don't see why the Aviation way business park can't be developed now, why do we need a bigger airport for this?
As for the loss of green belt ,agricultural land , allotments and playing pitches, this is totally unacceptable as these are the social fabric of our communities.
I'm sure the people that use these facilities are excited at the prospect of them being replaced with a park and ride facility!

support

As we live on the borders of the runway the impact on our daily life will be immense for the rest of our lives. My husband and I are retired and after working for more than 55 years we were looking forward to enjoying some relaxation in our garden. Now we have to look forward to the upheaval of construction work on the extension to the runway which will start as soon as final approval has been given to the plans - very soon if it is to completed by 2012. Noise, more air pollution and inconvenience with heavy machinery working all day. What will happen to the road this stage, or will the road go ahead first? Again more air pollution and noise, and where exactly will it be located in relation to Eastwoodbury Lane? On the proposal it is almost outside my front door! So what does the future hold for us? Not able to enjoy our rear garden because of maybe 50+ planes flying over each day that equals about 1 every 15 mins. Not to mention freight flights at night. No privacy as planes are just taking off when they reach our garden, sometimes I can see the pilots in the cabin, so obviously passengers will be able to see into our garden. Not able to enjoy our front garden, again no privacy and the noise from both the aircraft and the road traffic. Another question. Where are all the cars going to be parked for the airport? Although a rail station is being built it does not provide many parking spaces and as always many more people will travel by car for convenience. We have been told that the 'Park & Ride' area near to Tesco's is designed mainly for people travelling to Southend. With all the other inconveniences and intrusions we would not wish to have to look at a 'used car lot' from our house. Designated as 'open space' for how long will this be open space and not used for car parking. The proposal plan shows the airport boundary lined in red. Why does the fence not follow this line? We understand that most of the smallholdings in our vicinity have been given purchase orders and wonder why it has not been thought necessary to include our property? The plan may be good for Southend? But we do not think any thought has gone into the welfare and wellbeing of the residents on the fringe of the airport and we do matter if not to you to ourselves.

Little consideration, if any, appears to have been given to those who live or work around what is presently a pretty quiet, sleepy airport.

What compensation will they be given when they have to move, which they will.

In addition, how long will it be before you are knocking down more industrial estates and social and sporting facilities to create car parks and the traffic jams inevitably leading to them.

Our countryside will disappear and from the Crouch to the Thanes will be one vast built up area.

the areas you have designated as little use and for development eg. cricket pitches, rugby clubs, allotments, are part of the social fabric of the area - as well as attractive. Removal assists in the destruction of communities. We, the residents, enjoy living in the semi-rural area we moved to/grew up in. We do not want to live in a concrete jungle, which is what will happen. Maybe not by 2021, but by 2030?

PWCC objects to this proposal