Policy LS4 - Surface Access Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 8466

Received: 18/04/2009

Respondent: mr Peter Chandler

licence requirement

Object

Representation ID: 8522

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: Rory Emery

Strongly Object on the gorunds of:
(1) Living directly under the flightpath my quality life will be severely impacted
(2) Thought the government / councils were meant to improve the environment and not poison it
(3) Road connections to Southend are already over congested
(4) All promises of increased employment opportunities in other regional airport development have never been met.
(5) The SE already has 4 international airports for passenger travel.
(6) Investing in air travel can only be short term given oil becoming scarce / expensive in the next 10 years.

Object

Representation ID: 8526

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: Rory Emery

Strongly Object on the gorunds of:
(1) Living directly under the flightpath my quality life will be severely impacted
(2) Thought the government / councils were meant to improve the environment and not poison it
(3) Road connections to Southend are already over congested
(4) All promises of increased employment opportunities in other regional airport development have never been met.
(5) The SE already has 4 international airports for passenger travel.
(6) Investing in air travel can only be short term given oil becoming scarce / expensive in the next 10 years.

Object

Representation ID: 8650

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs susie Ash

I strongly object to ALL the proposals for the Airport expansion & redevelopment of the surrounding areas. The infrastructure will NOT support the planned numbers of passengers, and expansion of roads will only add to an already crowded environment. What will Cuckoo Corner and the A127 be like then????
Traffic in this whole area is already at total gridlock, and the airport expansion will certainly make this worse.

The increased noise & environmental pollution will affect thousands of local people.

I don't care how many new jobs they say will be created, they are not needed for this type of BAD PLANNING...

Comment

Representation ID: 8687

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Tony Comber

GROUND TESTING PLUS LANDING AND TAKE OFF NOISE OF INTERNATIONAL PASSANGER AIRCRAFT WILL CAUSE DISRUPTION TO A SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY. THIS WILL INCURE COST AND BLIGHT CAPITAL VALUES OF PROPERTY AS WELL AS RISK HEALTH ISSUES FOR THE LOCAL POPULATION FROM BOTH THE INCREASED POLUTION AND NOISE. STACKED AIRCRAFT JETESONNING FUEL WILL ADD TO THE BURDEN

Comment

Representation ID: 8688

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Tony Comber

Current road capacity is already at its limits. The use of secondary community roads throughout Rayliegh and Rochford is already cronic and dangerours as traffic tries to access or escape from the A127 and A130. The Rochford, Ashingdon Road, Lower Road via Hullbridge and Wa tery Lane link to Battlebrige as an informal relief route is already seriously overloaded and a regular accident spot. Traffic delays with predominently normal domestic vechiles is already a problem, any increase in goods vechiles would be disasterous. These roads just cannot deal with larger vechiles.

Object

Representation ID: 8689

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Tony Comber

The rail option is unlikly to attract significant public demand. Leisure passanger burdened with luggage will seek to use cars.
If just 50% of the forcast 2million use the car and on average each journey was for 2 the suggestion is 500,000 additional journeys.
This ignores fraight and the high impact of hgv seeking 24 hour access. Due to daylight traffic congestion the prospect is night time journey increasing out of all proportion.

Comment

Representation ID: 8690

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Tony Comber

Heavy Goods vechiles will present a major challenge in the Rayliegh and Rochford District.
Current infurstucture is inadequate. Problems already occure with heavy vechiles from the Docks. This traffic is already increasing and with the development of the thames gateway and olympics will contiue to increase beyound 2012. The current roads are to narrow and insufficent to deal with current demand. The high cost of the resulting maintenance and rebuilding will fall to the rate payer.

Object

Representation ID: 8720

Received: 21/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Davey

There is no way our limited infrastructure, even with considerable alteration, will be able to cope with the increased traffic. Apart from the disruption to our lives, travel, access to local areas already made difficult by congestion will worsen. Noise, traffic polution, air polution from more vehicles, over running travel times leading to frustration and impatience. SBC wishes more people to visit Southend as seaside town to come and enjoy the open spaces and beach. The town will just become one confusion of noise, congestion and heated tempers. Where is the pleasure.

Object

Representation ID: 8791

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jack Lawmon

Every one seems to be ignoring Rayleigh, with the introduction of Nestuda way for tesco, the opening of Cherry orchard lane giving access to Rochford, The traffic jams on the A127 and the progress road traffic lights.Rayleigh and in particular Eastwood road have endured an enormous unsustainable increase in traffic. This developement will in an shape or form cause havoc and distress to the reesidents of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. I can see no requirement for this developemnt and concern for the future having observed the events surrounding other Airports such as Stanstead and Gatwick

Object

Representation ID: 8792

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jack Lawmon

Every one seems to be ignoring Rayleigh, with the introduction of Nestuda way for tesco, the opening of Cherry orchard lane giving access to Rochford, The traffic jams on the A127 and the progress road traffic lights.Rayleigh and in particular Eastwood road have endured an enormous unsustainable increase in traffic. This developement will in an shape or form cause havoc and distress to the reesidents of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. I can see no requirement for this developemnt and concern for the future having observed the events surrounding other Airports such as Stanstead and Gatwick

Support

Representation ID: 8822

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Andrew Walters

-

Object

Representation ID: 8920

Received: 23/04/2009

Respondent: Chris Poole

The traffic in and around the vicinity of the airport is already conjested and any increase will put an unacceptable strain on the road network.

The volume of HGV's in Rochford road is already highand will get worse.

The wider issue of access to and from the A127/A13 must be addressed and corrected BEFORE any other planned work.

Object

Representation ID: 8949

Received: 23/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Newman

Quality of life significantly reduced, with an increase in air pollution, noise and traffic. Use Stanstead

Object

Representation ID: 9144

Received: 27/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Debra Emmerson

Flying low over resisential housing with so many schools is frigtening enough now. It would be a catastrophy if a plane should land short of the runway. Who could live with THAT on their conciousness???

Object

Representation ID: 9224

Received: 28/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Eldred

not wanted

Support

Representation ID: 9237

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: CPREssex

3.1 Surface Access Plan and Modal Share

We are not experts in this area. However we believe we can justifiably make the following comments.

We approve Policy LS4 - Surface Access Strategy, which says:
The airport operator will be required to prepare a Surface Access Strategy, the first version to be submitted in advance of any applications for planning consent, and thereafter an update of the strategy to be submitted every five years.
The impact of an additional 2 million passengers travelling to and from the airport in an already congested area of surface transport cannot be countenanced unless a very large proportion indeed travel by public transport. Any proposal for expansion of passenger aviation must be accompanied by costed and funded plans to achieve it.

Section 4.1 of Part 1 of the Evidence Base we considered in responding to the IOR refers to

"According to the Airport Surface Access Strategy, the staff survey carried out in 2006 revealed that 79% of staff drive to work alone, 7% car share, 11% use bicycle, 4% use motorcycles, 3% use the bus and 5% walk to work. 50% of car users say it is the quickest way."

This is the only indicator given of the likely modal split under current circumstances. We found no forecasts in the evidence base at that time of future modal splits when with passenger numbers up to 1mppa and eventually 2mppa.

This is a vital issue given current road congestion in the area. Para 4.5.1 p 40 in the Evidence Base lists surface access recommendations. These were, and are, purely aspirational. We found it unacceptable that the development proposals in the IOR had no concrete accompanying surface access plan, nor any clear statement of who would be responsible for funding including the share to be borne by the airport owners.

Any growth in passenger numbers should be catered for by maximum use of public transport. Any development plan should seek to greatly reduce the number of journeys by car, without which it would be unsustainable and environmentally damaging. Together with the increased air traffic movements, hugely increased road traffic will damage air quality creating both a health hazard and potential damage to the natural environment.

A genuinely sustainable surface access strategy is required.

Object

Representation ID: 9350

Received: 28/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Siobhan Thomas

Stobart are primarily a freight company - so not only do we have to put up with increased flights day and night, but increased maintenance day and night, and also increased HGV traffic day and night - the noise pollution is not just limited to that generated by flights but everything associated with what is hoped will be a busy airport in a very densely populated area, quality of life for residents will be appalling with no way of leaving - who wants to buy property in such an area - so we pay for the privilege as well!

Object

Representation ID: 9557

Received: 30/04/2009

Respondent: S Ewing

it is common practise to say one thing and do another.

Object

Representation ID: 9597

Received: 01/05/2009

Respondent: mrs linda matthews

i do not want increased air traffic over my house, and i dont think the infrastructure around the airport could cope with the increase in use.

Object

Representation ID: 9636

Received: 01/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Loraine Thompson

Stobart are primarily a freight company - so not only do we have to put up with increased flights day and night, but increased maintenance day and night, and also increased HGV traffic day and night - the noise pollution is not just limited to that generated by flights but everything associated with what is hoped will be a busy airport in a very densely populated area, quality of life for residents will be appalling with no way of leaving - who wants to buy property in such an area - so we pay for the privilege as well!

Object

Representation ID: 9782

Received: 04/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Gavin Freeman

More roads, more cars, more noise, more overcrowding in the south east, more traffic jams, surely, this corner of the country is crowded enough now?

Object

Representation ID: 9824

Received: 04/05/2009

Respondent: mr Paul Fox

With global warming we do not want a larger airport or more aeroplanes.

Object

Representation ID: 9854

Received: 04/05/2009

Respondent: mr ronald hill

All roads?mototways need to be built first!

Object

Representation ID: 10025

Received: 06/05/2009

Respondent: Ms Fern Schwartzbard

If the council has not honored looking at Section 106 of the current agreement after five years (due for review this July but nothing has been mentioned to residents about this) what guarantee do we have that the Surface access strategy will be reviewed?

Object

Representation ID: 10112

Received: 06/05/2009

Respondent: mrs sarah brill

will the strategy be implemented

Object

Representation ID: 10271

Received: 07/05/2009

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Limburn

It is already very difficult to get around Southend and surrounding areas at rush hours and on weekends, if the airport expansion goes ahead I can only see this problem worsening - we will effectively be cut off and stuck in this corner of Essex. We moved here for the local community feeling and to be close to the seaside - not to be stranded here at weekends. We have already noticed an increase in overflights in our area and the noise is very loud - I do not want more flights overhead and freight on our roads.

Object

Representation ID: 10284

Received: 07/05/2009

Respondent: MRS SUSAN THORN

OBJECT

Object

Representation ID: 10322

Received: 07/05/2009

Respondent: MR STEVEN THORN

object

Object

Representation ID: 10363

Received: 07/05/2009

Respondent: mr kevin Mahony

I object to expansion of Southend aiport.