Policy LS1 - General Policy

Support

Representation ID: 4524

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Nigel Stockwell

I support your plans to expand the airport by way of the runway extension, provision of terminal capacity for up to 2 million passengers per annum and expansion of the MRO facilities etc., while at the same time putting in place sufficient environmental controls to ensure that noise nuisance etc. is minimised. It is a well balanced policy that will result in a successful airport able, at last, to offer residents of the area a good choice of leisure and business destinations while at the same time forming the focal point for a high quality employment zone.

Object

Representation ID: 4527

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: Mr K Sanders

The latest climate science and the Government's new climate change law require big cuts in UK
carbon dioxide emissions - Airport expansion will increase emissions.

• Expansion will have serious impacts on local communities including increased noise disturbance and local air pollution.
• The economic justification for expansion is based on flawed assumptions which underestimate the environmental and social impacts and overstate the economic benefits.
• There are already enough airports in the South East to cater for current and future traffic levels.

It would be much better to close the airport and use the land for much needed housing.

Object

Representation ID: 4533

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: Mr K Hatfield

A full environment impact analysis should be undertaken to establish the level of deterioration in noise polution and air quality as a result of the proposed development. The effects on health of the local population particularly those with respiratory problems may be substantial and long lasting.

Support

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 19/02/2009

Respondent: MR J GRANGER

I fully support the plans for expansion and extension of the runway.
I believe don't believe a rigid cap of 2million ppa should be employed, but a level of flexibility around 2 million ppa with a tolerance level built in, subject to sensible noise and pollution monitoring.

Object

Representation ID: 4586

Received: 19/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Clifford Haddy

Please inform us how it is proposed to alleviate aircraft noise for us. We are alrady disturbed at night.

Support

Representation ID: 4615

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

I fully support the expansion of the airport to 2m and above. I have lived in the area all of my 57 years and remember the very successfull years of the 1960s and it is sad that the airport has not had the support it deserves for providing jobs for many over the past years.

Object

Representation ID: 4657

Received: 23/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Steven Baum

congestion

Support

Representation ID: 4684

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Anthony Cotgrove

I am in full support of the proposed expansion of Southend Airport.

Object

Representation ID: 4747

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: wesley prodrick

the planes that come in for maintenance at present fly extremley low over my house.this provides some novelty value when numbers are low.however any increase in size & number of planes would be intolerable.

Object

Representation ID: 4791

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Patrick Iredale

As a resident of Hockley I would like to register my objection to any planned expansion of Southend Airport. It is neither needed or wanted in my view, and will contribute nothing to the well-being and wealth of residents in either Rochford or Southend Council's environs.

This area is far too densely populated and built-up to consider expanding the airport any further. I understand it has been losing money for many years, and cannot in any way be considered an asset to either town. Traffic is already a severe problem in many localities especially at certain times of the day, and any expansion to Southend Airport will only exacerbate it.

At a time when green issues are heavily influenced (quite rightly) by public opinion, I would be surprised if I was in a minority in these views. To this end, can you advise, what, if any public consultations have been made or proposed in this respect?

Check out the local residents (and others) objections to proposed expansions to both Stanstead and Heathrow airports. Among many thousands of others, I am part owner of the parcel of land Greenpeace has bought, which is slap bang in the middle of the proposed new runway at Heathrow.

Comment

Representation ID: 4803

Received: 27/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs P R Byres

I am writing regarding the proposed extension of Southend Airport.

This has been overdue for many years!

My husband worked at the Airport for most of his working life and we remember its heyday when regular flights were made to the continent.

Southend Airport is in an ideal position, especially with the direct railway line to London. Also, with the hotel neaby which could be extended.

The Airport would regenerate the area and provide hundreds of jobs for residents.

The only drawback is the roads. Once again the question of a bypass via the North of Rochford would have to be considered.

Southend Airport could take the pressure off Stansted which would be a great relief to the residents there.

It seems ridiculous that an existing Airport is so under used when others are so over stretched. It must be a good thing for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 4810

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Joseph Morris

I wish to object strongly to the expansion plans for Southend airport.

It appears strange that people are still putting the economic benefits of expanding airports above the undoubted environmental damage caused by commercial flying. At some time in the future, in the midst of global warming and rising sea levels, those of you who are pushing this insane venture forward will have to admit that, not only did you do nothing to alleviate the environmental disaster that has happened, but that you took an active part in promoting it! One hopes you will be able to look your grandchildren in the eye.

As regards the economic benefits - I am sure these are minimal (I believe the number of jobs created at London City Airport is around five hundred). I am certain there are other uses to which the land on which the airport stands could be put which would have far greater economic benefits without the air and noise pollution created even by the modern generation of so-called efficient and silent aircraft.

But I have no doubt in spite of this that you will continue on your potty travels - meandering blindly along towards our future disaster while others line their pockets at all our expenses.

Just one small disclaimer - I have now reached an age where I don't have to worry too much about the future, but I do worry about those, including perhaps you, who still have a good percentage of their life's journey ahead of them.

Comment

Representation ID: 4811

Received: 27/02/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs M Roberts

I am writing to you conveying my fears about the go-ahead plan for the 'growth' and 'improvement' of Southend Airport.

You may be aware of the recent aircrash in Amsterdam which was televised tonight on TV as I write. My fears for the future of the London Southend Airport are very paramount as no positive plans now and in the future for airport expansion can alleviate any accident and loss of life.

We have already experienced the end of Concord, which crashed in the Paris airport.

The Olympic Games seems to be a rallying cry for the future of British Industries and expansion of Southends enterprises including hotels and airports. But has anybody given even a slight modicum of thought for it seems a minority of people who do not want it!

Expense, and of course expanse! Expense of money, bills, work and expense of lives and peace of mind.

When, and if, I do dread that an accident happens I expect the powers that be will be shaking their heads will say - "oops what a shame! you shouldn't live there".

We say NO to the Airport expansion or anything.

Object

Representation ID: 4812

Received: 02/03/2009

Respondent: Miss Smith

I'm writing to inform you of my opinion on the two options to alter Southend Airport. I have never written this type of letter before on the Airport but now feel I must.

I am absolutely against any of these options and altering the name to London Southend Airport, we live in Essex not in London. The extension to the runway also bodes ill for the future to be used as an overspill for Heathrow and Stansted Airports.

There are other reasons too, we have many flocks of birds coming from the artic and they could get entangled in the propellers and this is a densely populated area. The value of my property could tumble.

All Saints Church in Eastwoodbury Lane, very near the present runway. MP David Amess has taken this matter up before and there was a survey done on the Church - see the report. The Church cannot be moved and I do not want the Church to suffer noise and vibration or the Lane to be closed.

I hope my letter will be of help to you in making up your minds not to alter the runway or name of our Airport and thus letting in a huge number of passengers and aircraft into this area.

Object

Representation ID: 4821

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

I do not accept the premise that Southend airport should expand to support 2 million passengers. The global, national and regional economy cannot aspire to the pre collapse assumptions. The need for air traffic expansion has been challenged in both the Heathrow and Stansted debates. Here again I question it. Also if the Stansted expansion goes ahead as granted there is no need for a further provision in Essex.

Object

Representation ID: 4835

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

What is the point of another airport trying to extend when we are, according to the government,supposedly reducing carbon emissions and air polution.There are plenty other airports in the south east to travel from,and a lot cheaper,without using Southend airport,it is not a London airport.

Support

Representation ID: 4845

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: M Crouch

In my opinion expansion of the airport will be of significant commercial benefit to the area. It will provide employment opportunities and increase the general wealth of the area while providing a useful service to business travellers and holidaymakers alike.

Those close to the airport will of course experience an increase to noise levels and traffic in the area.

Provided that the aircraft operation conditions are enforced and the road and public transport infrastructure is built promptly, the benefit to the wider area will outweigh the pain felt by those living in the immediate vicinity of the airport.

Support

Representation ID: 4849

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Rochford Chamber of Trade

We see that the Preferred Option for high growth is in line with the representations made by the Rochford Chamber of Trade and Commerce at the consultation stage and we therefore support this option.

Object

Representation ID: 4859

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mr. Martin Round.

The Southend-on-sea Borough Council and Rochford District Council objected to a proposed Thames Estuary Airport on the grounds that it would be BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,WILDLIFE AND POLLUTION, even though the area is not densely populated.
There seems to have been no consultation on supplying an alternative runway position for London Southend Airport, such as building it from North-West to South-East. This would have made the flight path mainly over green belt land and the least populated.
Do they have double standards for our own area?

Object

Representation ID: 4862

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mr E A Clarke

The environmental constraints are weak and nebulous. The preferred option from the front-end consultation analysis by Rochford own planning department was not high growth. It was the medium growth 2(a)option.Read it for yourselves.
What is the point of a continuing public consultation if both Councils simply ignore a democratic majority vote. This is a scandal.

Comment

Representation ID: 4882

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs J N Grant

As I shall be greatly affected by any expansion of the airport we were promised that we would be consulted on any changes. So far I have received nothing from either yourselves or Southend Council.

I have lived under the flight path for 40 years now and have not had to complain about low flying planes very often but I shudder to think what will become of our lives, especially in the summer when we have our doors and windows open.

If we do get any passengers what roads will they travel on? The A127 and A13 are already congested and to get to the airport they will have to use ordinary street roads as well. They will not all come by rail as you are hoping becuase people like to have their cars with them.

The fact that a haulage firm has bought the airport implies that it will be used for freight and this means there will be increased night time flights, and for those of us unlucky enough to be under the flight path, disturbed nights.

I do not think that we need any expansions of airports as I have just read a newspaper article which says that planes are being laid up because there is not enough volume of passengers.

Support

Representation ID: 4884

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: Elizabeth Chambers

Regarding the London Southend Airport and Environs JAAP - having read all the information re the proposals; I have to say that I am very excited about the expansion plans, for the following reasons....

1. It could bring much needed life to this corner of SE Essex, which seems to be fading away at an alarming rate.

2. The benefit of increased job prospects can only help future growth of the area.

3. The planning of business areas is supurb because it will encourage future investment in the area.

4. Delighted to see that leisure and public places have not been forgotten.

Object

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 05/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Davies

Noise Impact and Pollution to local inhabitants of Rochford / Leigh on sea especially adjacent to and under flight paths is unacceptable
Passenger capacity flights every 0.5 hrs 7days a week
cargo flights numbers, not stated for day or night, airport operator has a vested interest in cargo movements see Carlisle Airport expansion
Plus Helicopter Flights passenger transfers presumable, not established
Plus Light aircraft hobbyists
Plus Training flights
Aircraft operators will not invest in new quieter aircraft until existing are past sell by date.
Job creation is only jobs per sqM not real.
More detail should have been worked through and included in this consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 05/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Antony Daniels

On the grounds of;
1.Over-development,the region has airports in close proximity(inc City,stanstead,Gatwick,Heathrow,)which serves all residents adequately therefore no need for expansion.
2.Highway safety issues - such as traffic generation, road capacity, car parking and effects on pedestrians and cyclists in the vicinity.
3.Pollution
4.Employment statistics misleading, evidence suggests that Low cost airlines only lead to direct employment of around 300 people per million passengers carried.
5. No adequate consultation provided. As a resident of Southend i am not aware of any other residents being consulted in respect of the proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 4899

Received: 06/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Chapman

The site is too constrained to allow meaningful growth and will have a detrimental impact on the right of people living around the airport to enjoy their homes and family life.

Object

Representation ID: 4911

Received: 07/03/2009

Respondent: Lin Marshall-Smith

I feel that the present format of the airport should not be changed due to the environmental impact it will have on the surrounding area.

Support

Representation ID: 4917

Received: 07/03/2009

Respondent: Miss Laura Van Assen

I am in full support of the proposals laid out in the preferred option.
The airport and its expansion would help to encourage long overdue investment and job opportunities to the area.
The ability to use the airport is long overdue, and a much better alternative to other London airports.

Object

Representation ID: 4935

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Avril Peebles

Who stands to gain from the Airport expansion?Not the unfortunate population who live under the flight path, or the fraught commuters who need to use the A127 to get about each day.

Support

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Hall

I agree with the policies proposed by both councils.

Support

Representation ID: 4976

Received: 06/03/2009

Respondent: Aber Ltd

Agent: Colliers International

Having read the document we would wish to offer our general support to the principles contained within the Joint Area Action Plan, and we would make the following points:

The strategic and local importance of the airport to this area is recognised and in order to reach its potential as a local regional airport, it is essential that airport is able to expand. Of particular importance is the need to extend the runway (as this would increase its attractiveness to fixed based operators), provide new passenger facilities, a park and ride facility and new train station to serve the airport; only with these essential improvements will the airport be able to transport the anticipated capacity of 2 million passengers per annum.