Policy T2 - Safeguarded Route

Object

Representation ID: 4516

Received: 16/02/2009

Respondent: Ms Sheila Jones

The raods are too congested at the moment, bringing in more traffic will only add to the congestion, you may put in more roads near the airport but the roads leading to them will then be jammed. The A127 and A13 are already very slow without more traffic coming in.

Support

Representation ID: 4623

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

Improvements will be a great asset to the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 4715

Received: 25/02/2009

Respondent: Mrs Karen Bailey

Safeguarded for what? Find it very odd that a small strip is being safeguarded when there is no comment in these proposals about St Laurence Church, which in my opinion most definately needs safeguarding.

Object

Representation ID: 4731

Received: 26/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Keith Thomas

expansion will result in more congestion to an already highly congested area particularly with regard to main feeder arterial roads

Object

Representation ID: 4762

Received: 27/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Chris Russell

A new link road needs to be built before the runway extension is started, not left for a "cost benefit analysis" and probably never started leaving the whole area as one gridlocked mess.

This needs to be all part of the Eastwoodbury Lane/ Nestuda Way link. Do it propperly or forget the whole expansion plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4814

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Jody Gonzalez

Totally against. There is not enough room for another road - it will run parallel to Eastwoodbury Lane and what is the point of that? I cannot see where it would emerge as houses are in the way.

Object

Representation ID: 4818

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Meryl Price

No matter how many new roads are built to the airport the connecting roads such as the A127 are gridlocked now so what is going to happen to the extra traffic? People will have to leave for work on Sunday to get there on Monday morning,Warners bridge is gridlocked on Sunday mid-day now.

Object

Representation ID: 4830

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

This so called "safeguarded corridor" means a road through a section designated elsewhere as a green public space. Again one policy contradicts another.
The clear message seems to be that the development will take place and token gestures to the environmemt will be made if it is not too difficult or expensive.

Object

Representation ID: 4905

Received: 06/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Chapman

The cost benefit analysis for the moving of the road should be done before planning permission is granted.

Object

Representation ID: 4954

Received: 08/03/2009

Respondent: mr john houlding

Nowhere does it state their would be an upgrade to access roads into the town. A127 and A13 are unable to cope at the present time. Nobody seems to be thinking about outside the back yard of the Airport.

Support

Representation ID: 5020

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5114

Received: 11/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

Further erosion of open space/green land totally unacceptable. The 'green corridor' is a joke. Whichever way you interpret it, it still means covering a large area in concrete.

"It will be subject to public consultation" but only the opinion they want to hear will be accepted.

Object

Representation ID: 5191

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.

Support

Representation ID: 5424

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

this would be very good for both Rochford Town and Southend East access

Object

Representation ID: 5630

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

This 'corridor' runs right through the middle of the only public open space that is feasibly accessible to Southend residents (the other being up near Hall Road) and will emerge in a densely populated area. And no mention of the compulsory purchase of some of the small holdings

Object

Representation ID: 5677

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: 5725

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: 5745

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Laura O'Connor

"Subject to detailed public consultation" it says. Then what? We'll be ignored. After all, the vast majority of contributors to this forum are objectors to the whole concept of the expansion of the airport, so why should any further consultation be necessary? The sad fact is that "Public Consultation" does not mean to say that "The Powers That Be" are going to take any notice of the public's view unless it co-incides with their own.

Support

Representation ID: 5805

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

This is a sensible measure bearing in mind the long identified need to improve access to the east of Southend.

Object

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

Object Policy T2: Object to the airport expansion and therefore there is no need for 'upgrade'.

Object

Representation ID: 6014

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

The expanded airport will still only be served by an A road, whatever the proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 6114

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

What safeguard, its another way of trying to make the report look good.

Comment

Representation ID: 6357

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jon Bennett

This road change appears to have escaped previous highlighting. Could more details be given on exactly what you propose and where it would run across. I support the diversion of eastwoodbury to nestuda but not sure what is proposed here. I am supportive of the overall airport development but sensitive to what is altered to achieve it. Especially if it is based on expectations and not good solid facts. For example the public dont know what annual passenger rate we presently have so cant compare to 2mppa. 55oo per day! 500 maybe.

Support

Representation ID: 6382

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree

Object

Representation ID: 6462

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

As above

Object

Representation ID: 6496

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: David Emery

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: 6576

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: 6655

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Comment

Representation ID: 6862

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Fred Bull

Why?

Object

Representation ID: 6940

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.