Policy T4 - Upgrade/Improvement of Aviation Way

Object

Representation ID: 4733

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: 4833

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

The historic St Lawrence church will be left on an island between a road junction and an extended runway. Also has it now been decided that the proximity of the church to an extended runway safe?

Object

Representation ID: 4987

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Lin Marshall-Smith

No alteration of this existing road system is needed as I do not support an increase in retail outlets and parks surrounding the airport. Current financial constraints are not condusive to supporting these new ventures and the traffic volumes should be discouraged in this already crowded area.

Support

Representation ID: 5022

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5193

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: 5209

Received: 13/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Mark Allington

Long overdue, it's currently a traffic snarl-up.

Object

Representation ID: 5387

Received: 20/03/2009

Respondent: Amanda Barness

No expansion please.

Comment

Representation ID: 5426

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

again only if proven necessary

Object

Representation ID: 5632

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

strongly object to all airport expansion

Support

Representation ID: 5657

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: London Southend Airport

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5679

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: 5680

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: 5727

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: 5747

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Laura O'Connor

If any notice at all is being taken of all the objectors, this road scheme will be totally unnecessary. It will also be highly detrimental to the ancient historic church of St. Lawrence, whose symbol, the grid-iron, makes up part of the borough of Southend's coat-of-arms.

Comment

Representation ID: 5799

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

I feel that the option of a roundabout between Aviation Way and Cherry Orchard Way by the corner at the Westcliff Rugby club, would serve this aim better, as it would take away a proprtion of traffic from the roundabout on Eastwoodbury Lane/Cherry Orchard Way (southern end).

Comment

Representation ID: 5816

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

Whilst supporting the need to improve access to Aviation Way, I feel that the option of a roundabout between Aviation Way and Cherry Orchard Way by the corner at the Westcliff Rugby club, might serve this aim better, as it would take a proportion of the traffic away from the roundabout on Eastwoodbury Lane/Cherry Orchard Way (southern end.

Object

Representation ID: 5841

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: jaime whistler

I am against all expansion at Southend airport.

Object

Representation ID: 5876

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Stephen Brown

Why make this road a dual carriage road. What will be next: a new road built across fields running directly from Cherry Orchard Way, passing next to St Mary's church in Hawkwell, then ploughing northwards across more fields.

Stop this damage now.

Object

Representation ID: 5953

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

Object Policy T4: No to airport expansion.

The proposal is highly detrimental to the ancient historic church of St. Lawrence, whose symbol, the grid-iron, makes up part of the borough of Southend's coat-of-arms.

Object

Representation ID: 6015

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Still only served by an A road, whatever 'tweaks' are proposed locally - to the detriment of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 6116

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

plans are just to unclear, I object for that reason

Support

Representation ID: 6384

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree. Walking and cycling paths to be encouraged.

Object

Representation ID: 6464

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

As above

Object

Representation ID: 6498

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: 6577

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: 6658

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6893

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: mrs justine dael

unworkable with traffic numbers, road safety, upkeep of road surfaces etc

Object

Representation ID: 6942

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 6982

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Adam Firth

Whilst junction improvements would be welcome, proposals related to pedestrian and cycle route improvements must be seen in a wider context in a town where such facilities are currently sparse and poorly connected.

Support

Representation ID: 7109

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Essex Chambers of Commerce

The Essex Chambers of Commerce strongly supports the proposed Policy T4.