Policy MRO2 - Northern MRO Extension

Support

Representation ID: 4619

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

I support the expansion of the area as it will provide additional hangerage and jobs.

Object

Representation ID: 4728

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Keith Thomas

increased hangerage and maintenance facilities will result in more noise and pollution and attract even more maintenance aircraft

Object

Representation ID: 4764

Received: 27/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Chris Russell

Much of the current excessive Airport noise comes from the testing of engines, often from older freight Aircraft which do not meet the new low noise passenger aircraft requirements. Any expansion of this activity should be strongly opposed.
This is often late at night even now.

Object

Representation ID: 4874

Received: 05/03/2009

Respondent: Environment Agency

Policy MRO2

Parts of this area fall within Flood Zones 2 & 3. We would make representations stating that the plan is unsound if evidence of the sequential test of PPS25 has not been provided to support the allocation of land within the Northern MRO area.

If this evidence can be provided that the sequential test has been applied, then the policy should be improved to include the need for all applications to include flood risk mitigation measures to be incorporated into the design.

Object

Representation ID: 4950

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Avril Peebles

Please see my comments on Polcy MR01.

Support

Representation ID: 5015

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5110

Received: 11/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

Development of hanger & maintenance facilities will have an adverse impact on the local area. Residents will more noise & nuisance imposed on them. Properties would lose value and make living in the area a nightmare. The walking & cycling facilities will not succeed as a 'sweetener' when the total adverse impact is counted.

Object

Representation ID: 5186

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: 5382

Received: 20/03/2009

Respondent: Amanda Barness

No expansion please.

Object

Representation ID: 5550

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Davis

Not only do I object from a pollution point I also object on the increased noise from testing engines. Sometimes the testing of engines last what seems an eternity and this can only get worse with the proposed increase in workload.

Object

Representation ID: 5552

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

the airport owner should have to fund all such infrastructure changes

Support

Representation ID: 5569

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: London Southend Airport

This policy should have more flexibility in the wording of the use, to enable airport related developments, such as the relocated control tower, the fuel farm and other ancillary uses, which might not be purely MRO to take place. In addition, this policy should include a reference to aviation training facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 5673

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: 5721

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: 5740

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Laura O'Connor

"A new public open space", they say...who is going to want to be out in the noise and pollution? If you can't be stuck indoors with the windows closed and the air conditioning on you won't be able to hear youself think, let alone be able to get some exercise...and no, I don't know anyone who's got air-con at home, but I have a feeling that it is soon going to become a necessity, if our windows are going to have to remain closed all through the increasingly warm summers.
Once this expansion goes ahead it's going to be there forever!

Support

Representation ID: 5800

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

New hangarage should be encouraged provided it fits with the safeguarding and operability criteria for the airport.

Support

Representation ID: 5847

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Christopher Kirk

I fully support, but there should be adequate screening with mature native trees where possible

Object

Representation ID: 5958

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

No to airport expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 5959

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

No to airport expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 5998

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr S Crumley

Fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 6009

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Or forget the airport expansion, keep the existing open spaces, avoid more road and air congestion, pour the money into making Southend a day-trippers'/weekenders' destination with more sustainable benefits for the community, and leave the next generation something we can be proud of.

Support

Representation ID: 6310

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr R Lupton

Fully support all proposals!

Object

Representation ID: 6456

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

as above

Object

Representation ID: 6493

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: David Emery

I moved into this area 14 years ago because it is a nice peaceful place to life. It remains one of the few areas in the SE where you can still enjoy a decent quality of life. How can anybody justify polluting aircraft, noise and carbon emissions, flying over a densely populated area? As for transport links its no good just improving local infrastructure, how will the A13/A127 cope with greatly increased traffic and large container lorries. This is madness.

Object

Representation ID: 6572

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Brian Birnie

I feel let down already that work of some kind is in progress in the Southend Road location. It appears that a decision has been made by Rochford and Southend Councils already.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and the changes that are associated with it. This list is a few of the reasons.
Increased pollution. Increased traffic on roads already congested. Increased noise 24 hours no guarantee to limits. Reduction in house values as can already be seen just with the expansion proposals. Increase in freight flights these planes won't be quieter than newer style passenger planes.

Object

Representation ID: 6651

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6779

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Steven Baum

Parking and congestion.

It is a fact that car travel journeys to work are 92 one occupant per car. Where are 6,000 cars going to park???

Let alone people visiting the new business parks

Object

Representation ID: 6780

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Steven Baum

Parking and congestion.

It is a fact that car travel journeys to work are 92% one occupant per car. Where are 6,000 cars going to park???

Let alone people visiting the new business parks

Object

Representation ID: 6936

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: P Crawshaw

I strongly object to the runway extension and associated developments. They will blight the lives of many residents in the area due to the increase in noise, pollution and traffic to provide very limited benefits.

Support

Representation ID: 6964

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES

MRO2:

Fully support enlargement of the Northern MRO.Zone Extension. It would like to see extra hangarage, more especially if it were of sufficiently size to accommodate aircraft up to B.737 size.