Policy LS5 - Public Safety Zones

Object

Representation ID: 4713

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Karen Bailey

What does this mean for St Laurence Church? I object to any proposal that does not accomodate this building, which dates from the 12th century.

Object

Representation ID: 4945

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Avril Peebles

I am against all expansion at Southend airport.

Object

Representation ID: 4961

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mr E A Clarke

This airport is ringed by housing, roads and a railway line and a church perched around 100 metres from the runway end. Any major expansion will test safety margins 24/7. The useable runway extension to 1799 metres is probably for a good reason. I suspect one further metre would incur another raft of safety requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 4990

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Lin Marshall-Smith

Considering the recent unfortunate aircraft accidents where planes have crashed short of the runways, how can an extension of a runway in a densely populated area be considered? It is madness. The council in 1966 turned this request down on safety grounds I strongly urge the current Council to use the same level of sense.

Support

Representation ID: 5012

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

Fully support without question!

Object

Representation ID: 5066

Received: 10/03/2009

Respondent: Mr. Martin Round.

I am objecting to all expansion at London Southend Airport. Read comments made on Policies LS1,3,6.

Object

Representation ID: 5100

Received: 11/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

Nowhere in the immediate vicinity of the airport or under flight paths can be guaranteed 'safe'. More flights; more chance of accident. The whole area is too populated to take that chance. Runway extension brings low altitude flying aircraft nearer to residents. Living under a flight path I can assure you it's frightening to see how low large aircraft fly overhead. Expanding an airport in a densly populated area is a no-brainer. Somebody must be getting a back-hander! Would anyone involved volunteer to live near Heathrow, Gatwick or Stanstead? I'm sure Ryanair/EasyJet would be happy to move their base.

Object

Representation ID: 5181

Received: 13/03/2009

Respondent: Mr B Jones

STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL EXPANSION. Do minimum or preferably no expansion.The increase in aircraft noise for us residents will become intolerable, emissions will increase. The road system cannot cope with current traffic levels. If 2m passenger movements are reached this will require about 4000 extra car journeys per day!!! Imagine the road upgrading work for the next few years that would be required. This area has a high percentage of elderly people who hardly fly. Who will the expansion benefit, people flying from outside the region and the business people and major shareholders who will make millions of pounds.

Object

Representation ID: 5218

Received: 14/03/2009

Respondent: Mr John Disney

Once established this gives the airport managment carte blanche to control any thing or any body within its environs and will mean no public say over any future actions or plans within our own locality.

Object

Representation ID: 5313

Received: 19/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Moss

The extension of the runway will reduce the safety of every body on the flightpath

Object

Representation ID: 5334

Received: 19/03/2009

Respondent: Mr terence white

Will we be involved in future review ?

Object

Representation ID: 5376

Received: 20/03/2009

Respondent: Amanda Barness

strongly object to the airport expansion plans.

Support

Representation ID: 5416

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

obvious

Object

Representation ID: 5445

Received: 22/03/2009

Respondent: Peter Mack

In many years of dealing with Southend Council I have learnt that safety would be a very low priority for them, when compared with some illusory financial gain. Let us see the council's emergency / contingency / evacuation plans. Let us see how they intend to ensure that the emergency services will be able to negotiate our completely congested roads. I am sure that we would all be shocked if we knew how little consideration they have given to public safety.

Object

Representation ID: 5449

Received: 22/03/2009

Respondent: MR ALFRED BROMLEY

I strongly object to extension of runway, resulting in a shortened "safety zone" which would be quite dangerous . In the event of an accident aircraft could quite easily reach the A127 with horrific consequences. A new airport would never be allowed to be built,with giant jets flying a few feet above a densely populated residential area with such an inadequate "safety zone"

Object

Representation ID: 5532

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Davis

The area surrounding the airport is very heavily populated including numerous schools. The potential for a major disaster does not bear thinking about.Unlike most other aiports there is very little green space for emergency landings.

Object

Representation ID: 5543

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

the runway extension was turned down in 1966 on safety grounds. 40 years on the local population has ballooned so the council now want to put even more lives at risk, and the Public Safety Zone will only be 'reviewed when the runway is extended'...bit late then.

Support

Representation ID: 5654

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: London Southend Airport

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5668

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Allan Trower

I strongly object to the plans to extend southend airport. I do not believe the area needs another airport, particularly one that is in an urban area and will effect many people's lives in leigh on sea, both financially through the fall in house prices and environmentally. Plans to have night flights are totally unacceptable and will be detremental people's lives including children and will effect their education. I for one will be discussing this with my Local MP to stop this ridiculous proposal. A far better plan would have been to move the Hospital to the Airport site!!!

Object

Representation ID: 5716

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Allan Trower

This will have a negative on:-

1. Environment (noise and pollution)
2. Wildlife and greenbelt
3. Surrounding residential properties
4. Public Services (Health and Education)
5. Infrastructure (congestion)

I dont believe the sweetner on job creation given the current climate so dont be fooled by this one. I can't see many companies wanting to invest in this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 5758

Received: 13/05/2009

Respondent: Mr Anthony Ball

1799 Metres is a very precise and rather suspicious figure, why not 1800 metres. Is it true that to lengthen the runway by just 'one' metre would need different safety criteria? If this is true then this is planning by deceit. Whatever the answer runway extension has been rejected on safety grounds before and what has changed to avoid this proposal being rejected again now. I oppose the extension of the runway as it jeopardise the safety of the residents directly under the flightpath.

Object

Representation ID: 5879

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: MR JEREMY DAVENPORT

The safety of many people living in the vicinity will be compromised anyway

Support

Representation ID: 5900

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Coford

I strongly support the expansion of the airport

Object

Representation ID: 5970

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Jason Yates

The public safety zones shown on the JAAP proposals map are very small and there is inadequate explanation as to how they are sized or positioned. The position of the South-Western Zone appears to take no account of the proposal to extend the runway, and if it did, would overlap with St. Lawrences Church, a Grade 1 listed building.

Should the runway be extended,the airport would have an adverse impact on the safe running of the church, and visa versa.

The extended runway would also have a negative impact on the setting of this building.

Support

Representation ID: 6058

Received: 30/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Rick Jackson

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6081

Received: 30/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Martin Birch

Southend airport is in the wrong location for anything other than low growth. The roads are congested and the area is overcrowded. Expanding the airport will give rise to more noise and air pollution. A restriction on night flights should be enforced.

Object

Representation ID: 6169

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Jon Spencer

Is the church not in the defined public safety zone, also if they airport is expanded it states that the current public safety zone would have to be reviewed, surely this should be done before, its to late after

Object

Representation ID: 6222

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Neil Taylor

We fail to see how decisions can be taken on the runway extension before assessments are made on the Public Safety Zone.

Object

Representation ID: 6291

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Christine Rose

Interesting that 1799 metre runway requested - as 1800 & above requires a higher raft of safety requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 6330

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: dave willats

CAN THE AIRPORT TELL ME IF THEY KNOW WHERE A PLAIN
WILL COME DOWN, IN THE SAFETY ZONE OR OUT SIDE TTHE SAFETY ZONE