Policy MRO3 - Southern MRO Zone

Support

Representation ID: 4620

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

Increase in hanagerage will mean more jobs which the airport has provided the town with for years.

Object

Representation ID: 4729

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: 4765

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: 4816

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

we object on the grounds that we have to put up with enough noise and smell now,from the existing maintenance hangars, without increasing it.what other airport has maintenance hangars within 50 to 70 metres of residential properties/

Object

Representation ID: 4904

Received: 06/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Chapman

A freight handler has bought the airport, freight will become the main business of the airport in the future, particularly when the developments at Shell Haven are operational.

Object

Representation ID: 4951

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Avril Peebles

Please see my comments on Policy MR01.

Support

Representation ID: 5016

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5111

Received: 11/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

My previous objections - MR02, apply equally to this section.

Object

Representation ID: 5187

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: 5339

Received: 19/03/2009

Respondent: Mr terence white

How much freight handling is planned ?

Object

Representation ID: 5383

Received: 20/03/2009

Respondent: Amanda Barness

No expansion please.

Support

Representation ID: 5421

Received: 21/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

agree

Object

Representation ID: 5551

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Davis

Please see my comments on MR01 and MR02

Object

Representation ID: 5553

Received: 24/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

I strongly object to all airport expansion

Support

Representation ID: 5570

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, and include a reference to aviation training facilities.
A particular concern about boundaries is illustrated by this policy, which suggests that developments will be supported in the area shown as the Southern MRO Zone on the Proposals Map. It should be clear that developments may take place in a much larger area than just as on the Proposals Map.

Object

Representation ID: 5674

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: 5722

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: 5741

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Laura O'Connor

"Limited Freight handling" they say...limited to what? a juggernaut full of goods every 10 minutes? Or what? We have such snarled up roads already that ever larger numbers of freight lorries are just unacceptable. The roads around our small town are just not built to withstand the heavy traffic they already endure, let alone all this extra freight. Road-works to fix the pot-holes so caused will soon be causing even more traffic problems.

Support

Representation ID: 5801

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.

Object

Representation ID: 5957

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

Object Policy MR03: No to airport expansion. What does limited freight handling mean?

Support

Representation ID: 6000

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr S Crumley

Fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 6010

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Increased pollution for what purpose? There are other ways to regenerate this area that are more sustainable than the airport expansion.

Support

Representation ID: 6379

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree. The MRO developments play a key role in supporting the business and operators should be encouraged to invest in Southend rather than to move to another airport.

Object

Representation ID: 6457

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

As above

Object

Representation ID: 6573

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: 6652

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Support

Representation ID: 6774

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Cheryl McCrae

Fully support

Object

Representation ID: 6937

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: 7009

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Turner

Excellent proposals that will help to ensure the lifeblood of the airport and locally-based businesses

Support

Representation ID: 7016

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Ian Chandler

As with the Northern development expansion of maintenance facilities should be encourgaed to privode much needed employment.