Policy T5 - Park and ride

Park and Ride right under the flight path ?? Not clear if this intended for Southend shoppers (are there that many?) or airport parking.

I object to the expansion and therefore every policy that relates to it.

I object on the grounds of:
Noise pollution
Air pollution
Loss of Green Belt land

Start a park and ride scheme when you have started to reduce car parking facilities in the town.

OBJECT

I fully support this policy.

The proposal is to establish a P&R within a PSZ. This is contrary to DfT guidance because of the risk of large-scale loss of life if an accident should every happen.

Park & ride to where? If it's for the airport, then the claim that nearly all passengers will use the new rail station are is as false as the claim that the airport expansion is necessary or any notice will be taken of this consultation.

Where will the traffic go outside the JAAP area? there are no plans for any road infrastructure improvement OUTSIDE the proposed jaap area. How will the vehicles get to the park & ride facility except along the A127 which is already over capacity. This is wrong.

While Park and Ride schemes can have some level of success, they can result in near empty buses conducting high numbers of journeys throughout the day. However, if frequency of services are reduced they become less popular as an option for people using the airport, who will then seek other parking arrangements.

With parking in general, there is also concern that airport users will try parking in local residential roads or business park facilities to avoid high car parking fees ar official carparks.

Park and Ride to where exactly? Have you looked at our High Street lately? And who wants to go to an airport town for a relaxing day at the coast or the shops? This development will be a disaster for this area.

I object to all the different aspects of Southend Airport expansion. I especially do not want increased noise, night flight disturbance, pollution, traffic congestion, CO2 emissions and the destruction of the quality of life for residents. Also I believe that the people of both Southend and Rochford have not received accurate and truthful information. I also object on the grounds of loss of living in a peaceful environment, the loss of greenbelt, the increased road traffic, congestion, pollution, etc.

(T5) Regardless of expansion at the airport, a Park and Ride facility for Southend is long overdue in order to relieve traffic congestion in the town centre. I fully support this proposal.

Insufficient details supplied re size of this facility and exact location of facility
Roads into Southend will still be unable to cope with increased traffic, particularly as Tesco roundabout already extremely busy.

Airport Expansion + New Roads= more noise & traffic + pollution & congestion = anger & misery = more works to fix the problems = less efficient transport system = more noise & traffic + pollution & congestion = anger & misery = more works to fix the problems = less efficient transport system = time wasted = -ve prosperity + anger & misery!

Airport Expansion + New Roads= more noise & traffic + pollution & congestion = anger & misery = more works to fix the problems = less efficient transport system = more noise & traffic + pollution & congestion = anger & misery = more works to fix the problems = less efficient transport system = time wasted = -ve prosperity + anger & misery!

I object on the following basis:
Noise pollution
Air traffic
Air pollution
Quality of life to local residents
Loss of Green Belt land
CO2 emissions/Global Warming

This system works very well in other towns and cities.

I strongly object to the expansion of Southend Airport and locality on account of the sizeable and indisputable increase in aircraft noise, air pollution and road traffic. As a resident caught beneath flight paths, this will significantly damage my quality of life and devalue house prices.
JAPP provides paltry evidence that expansion will coincide with economic prosperity, indeed even the employment opportunities quoted relate almost wholly to Saxon Park - jobs merely transferred from Eldon Way.
The designated green spaces are inadequate; the meagre network of walk/cycle routes a preposterous sweetener.
In this economic climate, the development is irresponsible.

Fully support, Any plans for public transport

The proposals

1. are ill conceived, with dramatic lack of properly evaluated evidence contrasted with hypothesis presented as fact
2. result in unacceptable loss of green belt
3. fail to reflect other transport infrastructure effects, particularly inadequate road provision and impact on other rail users
4. ignore the Nottingham Declaration
5. represent gross over development
6. result in unacceptable levels of air, noise, water and light pollution
7. are certain to have a detrimental effect on property values
8. will have an insignificant effect on local employment
9. fail to properly evaluate the necessary Public Safety Zone
10. will adversely affect public health, through breathing noxious fumes and the stress of disturbed sleep from such excessive night flights.

I have lived in the Southend area all of my life and have witnessed the various aspects of the airport from the days of passenger flights with Channel Airways, Bristol Freighters and Carvairs carrying vehicles, large jets landing and taking off after maintenance, right up to the present day. I used to live in Rochford Road and experienced take-offs and landings using the cross runway (coded 150/330) as well as the current 060/240. Prior to moving to Yeovil Chase, on the Somerset Estate in Westcliff, I have lived at Flemming Crescent in Leigh. You will thus see that I am aware of the airport and its flights both past and present and am not averse to flying in our area. Indeed, I have used the airport for a British Airways flight to the Channel Islands, albeit the outward 'flight' was a coach transfer to Gatwick! The current expansion plans bring a completely new dimension to the airport use and I am totally against the Preferred Option details in those plans. My objections are detailed under various headings. Extension of Runway 060/240 I deplore the further encroachment and total loss of the so-called green-belt land between Prince Avenue and Eastwoodbury Lane, once a strawberry field and other arable crops, and now filled with a major store, the RBS offices and a hotel complex. I would remind Southend Council of the plan to extend the alternative runway 150/330 in a north-westerly direction over open land. This was rejected by the Government inspectors on environmental grounds, along with vociferous objections from wealthy residents in Hall Lane. Why should the current proposal be acceptable when even more peole would be affected than the rejected 1966 plan? I find it suspicious that there is no published photograph of the 060/240 runway from the NE approach. This would show the massive residential area affected by the SW extension rather than the sparsely populated area in the NE land mass. Loss of the recreation area to the north-west Nestuda Way. I cannot see how a Park-and-Ride facility will be used by the public unless it is proposed to be similar to the privately-run facilities offered at Gatwick and Heathrow. It is not clear in the proposals what exactly is intended. And which recreation ground will be able to accommodate the footballers on weekends? The diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. Despite statements to the contrary, this road is more than a country lane or rat run used by vehicles trying to avoid bottlenecks on the A127. Nestuda Way and the enlarged Cherry Orchard Lane were aimed at relieving Rochford from some of the traffic passing through this town, feeding as it does into the Ashingdon Road, and cutting the volume of traffic using Warner's Bridge and the Southend Road past the Anne Boleyn PH. The siting of the new automotive retail park and the proposed increase in retail and manufacturing premises will increase traffic movements and the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane into a strip of land between the runway and the RBS car park will create even more traffic at the proposed junction (a roundabout or traffic lights?) with Nestuda Way. A proposal to reserve a corridor from Warner's Bridge to Nestuda Way does nothing to alleviate the crowding that will occur at the Tesco roundabout. A recently delivered leaflet mentions the SERT initiative. This will not improve traffic flows as it uses already congested roads such as the A127, Prittlewell Chase or Victoria Avenue. Road Improvements Scheme. There does not appear to be any mention of upgrading existing roads in the area, especially the A127, nor of any scheme to put in place the construction of a new east/west link that does not involve the Arterial Road. The developments at the eastern end of the borough, at Shoebury barracks and Wakering for example, all funnel traffic into the already congested A13 or A127. A slogan that appeared when the Cuckoo Corner/Priory Crescent scheme was first mooted now springs back to mind - 'No Infrastructure? No Development!' somebody or some body (the Council) must 'bite the bullet' and bypass the northern Southend boundaries. The expected increase in movements of heavy goods vehicles associated with a freight organisation such as the Stobart Group must not use existing heavily congested roads such as Rochford Road at The Bell or the A127 at the Tesco Roundabout. The A127 is already at saturation level. Aircraft Pollutiion. Whether this be noise or fumes, the approach to, and take off from the airport by jet aircraft will generate increases in both. The JAAP has no firm figures with regard to the number of proposed flights, even though the most affected area under the flight path is the densely populated area of Leigh. Night flights by cargo jets should be banned completely. the current situation whereby night flights (2200-0800 hrs in winter, 2100 - 0700 hrs in summer) are allowed subject to prior permission of air traffic control should be replaced by a public statement showing exactly what is planned. A gentlemen's agreement to restrict flights or a woolly statement in the JAAP is not sufficient. We have lived in our house for over 30 years and we do not consider that you have the authority or constituent's permision to threaten our right to peace. Flight Path. The current flight path already passes over the highest point in Leigh (Bridgwater Drive near St Cedd's church) and an extension to the runway will mean that landings and take offs will be closer to existing residential houses. Noise levels will be higher. This is not acceptable. Housing Blight. If this venture goes ahead, the properties in our area will suffer a substantial reduction in value and what is now one of the more desirable areas will become blighted in the same way that areas around Stansted are affected. Will the new owners of the airport pay compensation claims for the loss in value of family homes?

1) There is no mention or input by the Highways agency, and will the roads below be widened before any changes to the Airport are made.
a) There is no plan when the A127 will be widened to three lanes East and West. b) There is no plan when the A13 will be widened to three lanes East and West. c) There is no plan when the A12 will be widened to three lanes. d) There is no plan when the A130 will be widened to three lanes.
2) You have not given an estimate of the Vortex strikes expected in the first five years. What emergency procedures will be in place e.g 24/7 - 365 days etc.
3) You have not told us who the expected airlines are who will be carrying passengers.
4) You have not said how people living on the West side of Rayleigh Weir will get into Rochford or Southend with all the extra traffic.
5) The park and ride facility is unclear, is it for Southend Council employees to park in so that it will save the cost of refurbishing the Civic Centre car park? Is it for people expected to fly out of Southend Airport?
6) There has been no consideration to the people living in the area from Shoeburyness to Upminster who will be affected by the additiional noise and traffic, our environment and quality of life.
We know that it is a done deal and this will fall on deaf ears.

The Airport - I am against the proposals in the above consultation document because of the increased carbon emissions and noise pollution and resulting increase in road congestion. More planes = more CO2 emissions and more noise pollution - both will increase with an increase in the number of flights. This is totally inconsistent with the Council signing the Nottingham Declaration and supposedly being committed to reducing carbon emissions and thus tackling climate change.
The planes fly over several schools and at times are very low. My daughter attends WHSG and says that the planes are very low when they pass over the playing fields (Bentalls) next to St Thomas More School which WHSG also uses. One plane was so low that it was only about 20m above the floodlights around the Astroturf. The boys at St Thomas More School (it was lunch time and they were playing outside) instinctively moved away as they thought the plane might crash!
This means that children and residents would be at risk if there were a crash. Also, there will be an increase in pollution and noise levels in this area. In summer, when the weather is hot and classroom windows are open the noise will be more intrusive. I do not think that children should have their studies disrupted by airport noise - this already happens at times so that the teacher has to suspend teaching until the plane has passed over.
These effects will adversely affect the other residents over a wide area and if night cargo flights are allowed the situation will be exacerberated.
The airport is situated in the middle of a densely populated area with already inadequate transport network. The A127 is not a fast road as much of it is limited to 40 or 50 mph as far as Basildon. It is already at saturation point with it and the surrounding roads not infrequently gridlocked. This is without the extra vehicle movements associated with the flights let alone the lorries carrying freight - and with Eddie Stobart owning the airport and the new industrial area freight movements would increase markedly. This would result in even more congestion and even more carbon emissions from the extra vehicles and static or slow moving traffic. On a foggy day this pollution would not be able to disperse.
The new railway station would have no impact on the freigtht movements and the majority of people would probably travel to the airport by car as they do not like public transport and the links are so bad anyway. The park and ride area will also probably be inadequate for the proposed number of passengers. It would also mean further parking stress in an area already badly afftected by parking from RBS.
The references to cycling and walking are irrelevant as nobody cycles to catch a flight and only a limited number of people would cycle, especially in wet weather. This would also largely apply to airport staff.
I think that no night flights at all should be allowed and that flights should not be allowed outside 7.30am-9pm Mon-Fri and 9am-9pm on Saturday and Sunday. Noise levels have definitely improved recently with the cessation of the 7am ford flight. Noise levels should not be allowed to exceed those currently experienced.
Saxon Business Park
I object to this as it would be building on a green field/partly green belt site and there is very little green amenity space left in Southend. The so-called 'green lung' is more like a green alveolus, i.e it is too small to have any mitigating effect. There are several other industrial areas already in the vicinity which are underused - perhaps these could be refurbished and upgraded to be 'eco-friendly'. If the new Business Park were to create around 5,000 jobs where would all these people and customers/visitors park? They would be too far away from the station and most would not walk or cycle. Many of the 'new jobs' would probably come from business relocating to the new site.
It would also result in increased vehicle movements in an already congested area with a concurrent increase in carbon emissions.
The development of the airport and business park would reduce the quality of life even further for many of Southen's citizens and the surrounding areas as increased noise pollution, carbon emissions and traffic stagnation hardly make Southend a desirable place to live.

Support the complete document.

The most important part is the roads, park and ride and transport links

1. The proposed development can only bring prosperity to the local community if the majority of the anticipated employment is for local people. Can local residents be assured that this will happen? Have procedures been established to streamline the matching of job opportunities to recruitment of local residents seeking employment.
2. The proposal assumes that employees at the airport will arrive on foot or cycle. This will definitely not be the case if jobs are not filled by local people. But given our climate, and people's natural aspirations, it is unrealistic to assume that more than a small minority of employees will walk or cycle to work. Have any surveys of existing employees at the airport or in Aviation Way been carried out as to how they commute to work? Essex County Council has now acknowledged that our Government's policies to restrict the number of motorists are nonsense and has decided to ignore them. It was these policies that created garages too small to house cars and the ridiculous situation whereby RBS were not allowed, or even encouraged, to create enough car parking spaces for the staff at their new card centre near Netsuda Way. Since then local residents have been complaining bitterly about RBS employee's cars littering the streets because there is no room for them to park at their place of employment. The result of these policies has been inconvenience for workers faced with a long walk at the start and finish of work and annoyance for the residents. It is essential that the Councils realistically assess the car parking facilities needed and ensure that these are provided.
3. Apart from the new railway station car park and the park and ride facility there is no mention of parking facilities for airport or business park employees, or for the two million new passengers. We need to follow the lead of Essex County Council and take a more realistic approach to motorists and so parking proposals need to be much more specific. If Southend is to become a regional hub for European flights we must have forecasts as to how many travellers will use public transport and how many will want to park their cars on-site. Parking provision should then be created accordingly. Policy LS2 talks of modal split targets. What are they and how do they relate to the present day?
4. During the discussions regard the new Southend football stadium there was much talk of park and ride facilities. To date the first definate proposal for a park and ride site is the one shown on the plan at Netsuda Way. The area of this site is not large and there is no mention as to whether this facility is intended for:-
1. Airport off-site short/long term parking
2. Short term car parking for central Southend shoppers
3. Short term parking for football supporters attending the new stadium
4. Any other purpose
Without knowing the intended purpose, the anticipated demand or capacity of the park and ride facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility it is impossible to comment as to its potential usefulness. More details regarding this facility need to be provided. There also needs to be further discussion as to the siting of this facility. Presumably no access from the eastbound lane of the A127 has been included because there are already traffic problems at the Southbourne Grove exit. But the Tesco/RBS roundabout is already sufering gridlock at times and introducing further queuing at a new roundabout only 300 metres away in Netsuda Way will add to the traffic congestion in this area.
5. Under 'Vision and Objectives' the document states....there is a need to release the potential of Southend's land and buildings to achieve measurable improvements in the town's economic prosperity, transportation networks, infrastructure and facilities, and the quality of life for all its citizens. It is hard to know what this sentence is trying to say but surely it is more important to release the potential of the town's workforce than land and buildings? The next paragraph goes on to mention SO11...providing for significant new employment opportunities and improved surface access. The only way that will happen on anything other than a short term basis is by radically upgrading the road infrastructure in the area.
Southend has long been in need of a completely new east-west highway to the north of the A127, linking the A130 to Great Wakering with north-south feeder links into the various districts of Southend. To date, the Council has never requested such a new road from Essex County Council despite the fact that County Hall has said it has no objection to such a scheme. The result of this neglect of our road infrastructure has been the steady loss of thousands of jobs every year from Southend to Basildon and other areas with better road links. The only new road envisaged in these proposals is a link from Eastwoodbury Lane to Netsuda Way and the only justification for this new piece of road is that the extended runway will go over the old road. Other than that we are promised the usual improvements to foothpaths and cycleways. It is high time Southend Council got a grip on the reality of the situation that, apart from London workers, the overwhelming majority of people commuting to work in south-east Essex are car drivers and therefore road users. Southend residents and visitors to the town deserve better than having to queue on the A127 every time they want to travel. Without adequate roads and adequate car parking any expansion of the airport is doomed to merely create more chaos in the town.
6. The document contains no discussion as to why the existing Eastwoodbury Lane route cannot simply be replaced in a tunnel under the runway at the same site. We understand that there is concern that this route would be directly beneath the impact point of landing planes but there must be some merit in considering tunnelling 100-150 metres distant. Given the amount of concrete being used for the new runway it would surely be cheaper to keep as closely as possible to the present route in this manner rather than creating a new road that involves a one mile detour for anyone accessing Aviation Way from the east. If Eastwoodbury Lane were tunnelled it would also be an opportunity to expand the length of dual carriageway from the northern end of Nestuda Way. The new road as shown would terminate at a new roundabout only some 300 metres distant from the one at the southern end of Netsuda Way. This roundabout is already regularly gridlocked and so another new junction in such close proximity will only add to the existing traffic chaos. The document also says that a contribution for the construction will be sought from the developer but since the road is a direct replacement to enable the runway to be lengthened then the developer should pay the whole cost of construction.
7. Under 2.3 the document states...a modern terminal building...with fast road access to the A127. Is Southend Council envisaging increasing the current speed limit of 30mph between these two points? Even if they were, there seems little point in so doing since speedy arrival at the A127 would only equate to a rush to get into the usual gridlock. There is no point in having in fast road access to a heavily congested route where motorists travel daily at walking pace.
8. Section 3 Issue 4 raises a number of questions. There are no details of proposed SERT routes and these need to be provided. At the very least the SERT transport system should be fully integrated into public transport links from the airport to the town centre.
Once again there is a return to fantasy with the statement 'Opportunities to encourage a modal shift to reduce current levels of car borne traffic...John Prescott said something similar in 1997 and despite his aspirations the number of cars on the roads has increased annually ever since. Will all Council employees undertake to walk, cycle or use public transport to work in all weathers for the next 12 months? Try persuading them. Yet the public are constantly being pressurised by those in authority with statements and wish-lists this like this. Why should people be expected to take an uncomfortable means of transport to work and quite possibly ruin decent office clothing when it rains when their motivation to work hard has been to avoid this sort of discomfort? The statement continues ...'through traffic management solutions....' A traffic management solution by definition would speed the flow of cars whilst allowing for an increase in volume of traffic. Your 'solution' as written would seek to place further obstacles in the way of drivers in order to try and discourge them from using the roads which is totall unacceptable. You then state'...improvements to public transport...'If you mean that public transport would be so improved as to make car travel second choice this is unlikely in the extreme. This same statement carries on'...improvements to walking and cycling facilities'. As stated previously, improvements like these will be of no consequence to the vast majority of residents.
The next statement concerns amongst others 'the provision of new routes' but gives no indication as to where these may be planned for. The illustrated extension to Eastwoodbury Lane could hardly be considered a new route. Once again there is a paucity of detail and there is no mention of the desperately needed new east-west trunk road.
9. The London Southend Airport Introduction, Page 20 states in paragraph 4 that the transport infrastructure is at present inadequate to cope with expansion of the airport. It describes the proximity of the airport to the A127 as being close to a strong connection (part of the south Essex's strategic highway network) which would be laughable were the daily reality of this route not so tragic. As previously stated, there is no point in anyone rushing from the airport straight into gridlock. As for rushing to the airport, the prospect becomes ever more terrible with the recent introduction of a 50mph limit over a 4 miles section of the A127 that had been 70mph for the previous 50 years. Presumably this is part of the traffic management solution as described earlier. Road, cycleway and pavement improvements, as described will make absolutely no difference whatever to the speed of access or egress and these comments are inserted so airily as to confirm that there is absolutely no grasp of the reality of the subject under discussion. Put simply; our existing road system is totally inadequate; people are not going to stop driving their cars; there will definitely be more cars on our roads in 12 months time; we need a new east-west trunk route to the north of the A127. We simply cannot afford to have any further developments or expansions in this borough until we have a new road.
10 Whilst the document acknowledges shortcomings in the road infrastructure there is no mention of the pressures this development will place on other aspects of the overall infrastructure. Two million passengers a year translates into greater demand for medical facilities and these are already at full stretch in this area. The new terminal will need adequate toilet facilities for 5,000 plus travellers a day but Southend's Environmental Director has recently told us that waste water treatment and drainage is at capacity.
11. The new terminal as illustrated on the site plan appears very small when compared to the retail outlets nearby. Will it be big enough?
12. Will the new railway station have lifts to ensure easy access to both platforms for travellers with luggage as well as for the disabled? Will similar facilities be installed at all other stations on the Liverpool Street line? Will travellers to the new station be offered cheap fares? If they are not, the the Councils must be aware that the majority of travellers will prefer to either drive themselves and park at the airport or use a taxi. either way there will be more car traffic. The current economics are such that it is far cheaper and easier for a group of four people with luggage to take a taxi from as far afield as Wickford rather than use the train.
13. Transport within the JAAP refers to increased investment in the local highways network. We need a great deal more than the proposed upgrades for any airport expansion to be viable.
14. The application is detrimental to the environment if there is an increase in the number of night flights over and above the current level which is approximately 100 per night/week/month? Residents will want assurance that this number will not be increased.
15. The overall impact of this project could potentially be monstrous. Can the Councils guarantee that the environment and local communities will be protected?
16. If the airport expansion proceeds the Councils will need to guarantee the protection of St Lawrence Church.
17. Has the possibility of increased noise levels on landing and takeoff been sufficiently appraised to avoid loss of amenity to local residents? The noise footprint as illustrated for the purpose of describing the noise from the new quieter jets may be irrelevant if noiser aircraft are allowed access to the airport because of the increase in runway length. If such aircraft are allowed then we need another footprint plan drafted. Some information is required as to the likely noise impact of increasing the airport capacity to 2 million people per annum. Residents can have no appreciation of the impact without providing noise contours and noise levels as between now and the capped limit. Furthermore it cannot be the case that some additional open space can mitigate the environmental impact. A more honest approach is necessary to put in context the additional noise, disturbane, smells, traffic dangers and congestion which residents will have to endure.
18. Will there be a re-appraisal of the viability of this project in light of the recent budget increase in air passenger duty?
Southend has long been overdue a radical overhaul of infrastructure - particularly of our roads. Residents are sick to death of the constant hot air about 'improvements to foothpaths and cycleways' especially when they waste hours every week crawling along the A127. There is now a very strong opinion throughout this town that there should be no further development of any sort until our Council has commenced construction of a new east-west trunk road to the north of the A127.
Contrary to commonsense and against the wishes of the majority of the town's resident's the Council has forged ahead with massive overdevelopment in recent years. The Council has recently stated that a more considered view of expansion will be taken in future. Perhaps it should start now by expending some real effort on a proper set of plans for a decent infrastructure for the town and its residents.
Provided the noise and environmental issues were properly addressed and we had a decent infrastructure in place it is likely that the majority of us would welcome an expanded airport that afforded us the opportunity to jet off all over Europe from our doorstop. However, given our current circumstances the proposal is a wish too far. Before continuing discussion regarding expansion of the airport we need more information as requested in the foregoing. We would also earnestly request that Southend Council commence urgent discussions about the radical improvements we need for our road infrastructure; that is a new east-west trunk road.

The land proposal involves building a million square feet of buildings mostly on Green Belt Land. It also involves increasing flights from the Airport which will increase carbon dioxide emissions. If the airport does not expand those emissions will not take place. It is an absolute nonsense to waste reams of paper and time not to mention resources discussing putting in cycle paths if any possible benefit is totally eclipsed by new aircraft movements and increased pollution from grid locked vehicles on our local roads.
The consultation fails totally to deal with the increased road traffic which will be generated not only by some two million extra passengers but also by the extra freight movements and vehicle movements involved with the new industrial space. The suggestion that a road will be provided to the A127 is a joke bearing in mind that the road is already at saturation point much for the day and now restricted to a maximum of 50 miles an hour as far as Basildon. There is no commitment to upgrade the A127.
Clearly the other surrounding roads cannot cope and are not capable of handling the increased traffic. Whilst the new train station will go a little way towards accommodating some passenger traffic it will do nothing for freight and only serve a proportion of passenger traffic.
This will increase carbon emissions in two ways firstly from the increase in vehicle movements and secondly from the increase in congestiion which will lead to further emissions from the existing level of traffic. Any suggestion that public transport will cater for the new industrial areas is pie in the sky as at present there are railway stations in the borough without peak bus services. If these are not viable it is certain that ones serving these areas will not be. Cycling as a solution is a red herring as it only applies applies to a very limited number of people in good weather. In addition were it to be used more widely the effects on traffic congestion on the main roads would be counter productive as cycles slow down and impede vehicle traffic. One cannot do a major shop on bicycle nor take the children to school or comfortably undertake most journeys. In fact there now seems to be a trend towards increased road journeys. In fact there now seems to be a trend towards increased road journeys to access attractive areas in which to cycle!

Thankyou for your letter of 16 February inviting Government Office to comment on the Southend Airport Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options DPD.
Steve Bateman provided comments on an earlier version of the consultation document, in his letter to you dated 17 July 2008. He provided you with advice on progressing the DPD through the consultation and examination process under the revised PPS12, the amended Town and Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations and the Habitats Directive. I will not repeat Steve's procedural, nor his regulatory advice in this letter.
The Local Development Framework system is intended to produce concise and easily understood documents. They should set out a positive approach to managing new, spatial development. The Preferred Options document is clear and written in accessible, easily-understood language. However, the document elaborates the preferred option without explaining reasons why it was chosen, nor why alternatives were dismissed. It is very important to link the preferred option to the evidence that justifies its choice. Evidence should have emerged from previous consultation, the sustainability appraisal and existing or commissioned studies.
The Preferred Options document asserts particular directions of travel, particularly in its policy statements. In doing so, it constrains opportunities for Members to adopt any flexibility in their decisioin-making and approach to development.

The Councils' have announced their "preferred option" for London Southend Airport. However:
Although the Councils say that they have "now considered the comments made" on the first round of consultation, there is no evidence of this.
No reasons have been given as to why the Councils have opted for the maximum airport growth in preference to the other options.
No information has been given on how the comments made by respondents to the previous consultation had been taken into account or informed the decision-making process. How are we to judge whether the Councils actually did consider the views of the respondents?
Without the feedback the assumption must be that the consultation was simply window dressing and that the preferred option was decided well in advance.

The preferred option is predicated on the airport's runway being extended to allow more planes with greater capacity and capable of reaching a bigger holiday catchment area to use Southend Airport. The justification is that the airport would be a driver for economic regeneration and would result in the creation of 7,380 new jobs. However:
At a recent meeting organised by Leigh Town Council, Councillor Lamb, portfolio holder for regeneration, admitted that 6,000 of the jobs are calculated to happen irrespective of any expansion to the airport.
There are no guarantees that the jobs would be created. Although business plans for the airport have been well developed and have a sound financial basis, no such business plan or financial commitment underpin the job creation proposals. The figure for new jobs seems to be based purely on arithmetic: x hectares = y jobs. If the airport expansion goes ahead but the number of jobs doesn't materialise, will we see the runway shortened back? Once it has been sanctioned, the airport expansion will definitely take place irrespective of what actually happens with regards to jobs. At the very least, the growth in passenger numbers should be proportionate to the new jobs actually created - i.e. for each new job filled by a Southend resident the airport can have an extra 271 passengers per year.
Indeed, the airport may well have a negative impact on local jobs and the local economy as it will encourage people to travel abroad for their holidays. The Council should be encouraging people to spend their money here in Southend instead of in France or Spain.
It is not proven that these jobs will be new jobs for the unemployed residents of Southend. A number of these jobs will be taken by people outside the Borough, by business within the Borough re-locating to the new business park and by employed residents who currently commute to jobs out of Southend changing to work locally.
The jobs being created are said to be "high-tech" jobs: what research has been done into whether the local unemployed have these high-tech skills?

The JAAP requires the destruction of established greenbelt land. However:
Across Southend there are vacant brown-field sites sitting awaiting redevelopment: e.g. the derelict business park alongside Priory Crescent and the abandoned office blocks along Victoria Avenue. These should be redeveloped first, especially as they are closer to the town centre, better served by public transport and better for local traders.
Those who do struggle to get to the planned new public open space will have to do so by road causing more traffic congestion, more pollution and more on-going damage to the natural environment.
The publicly accessible zones will be polluted by fumes and noise from aircraft; they will not be attractive places to visit. They would appear to be an artifice to offset the real damage that will be caused to the environment by the commercial development.

The JAAP deals with transport within its area and fails to address the implications that the airport expansion and the new business park would have across the Borough as a whole.
The Councils say that there will be "fast access to the A127": but what good is that when the A127 itself is block with traffic? Although it may be easier to simply consider Eastwoodbury Lane and Aviation Way, to do so is disingenuous and fails to take account of the impact the proposals would have on the traffic flows along the A127, A13 and roads around the Borough. The Borough's road network is already struggling to sustain the existing traffic. The 7,380 workers at the business park and airport and the 2,000,000 passengers will have a disastrous impact on the Borough's already heavily congested road network.
The increase in the number of cars will inevitably cause serious parking problems in the area and neighbouring areas.
The park-and-ride area proposed near Nestuda Way is too close to the airport and will not reduce the flow of traffic into and through the Borough. A sensible, well-thought out scheme would locate the park-and-ride car parks beyond the Borough boundary.
Siting the business park on the edge of the Borough is a strategic nonsense. While the centre of Southend is decaying, shops, sports facilities and now businesses are being located on the periphery. This increases the number of road journeys, makes access difficult and does little for Southend's aspirations to carbon neutrality.
Talk of "Green Travel Plans" is a contrivance: something that will look good on paper and tick the right boxes but will never be implemented in practice. The Council will be unable to monitor and control alterative "green travel" usage, let alone enforce non-compliance with the original promises.

The JAAP's preferred option is based on the premise that the airport will be extended and that the number of passengers will increase to 2,000,000. However:
The increase in noise and disturbance from the high number of flights would be seriously detrimental to residents, schools and medical centres particularly those close to flight path. The Councils claim that the aircraft will be "quiet": there is no such thing as a quiet plane.
The increase in pollution resulting from the increased number of take-offs and landings would be detrimental to the health of residents particularly of those close to the flight path.
The increase in air traffic will increase the threat to the safety of residents from air accidents, collisions and other incidents.
It is naïve to think that passengers will mainly use the new railway station; as with other airports, most will travel by road and the resulting congestion will cause traffic chaos.
6,000 of the hoped for 7,000 new jobs would be created anyway without extending the runway.
The Councils do not think it "desirable for the airport to handle significant volumes of freight". They claim that night flights will be restricted by a "noise quota system" but they fail to define what that is. What trust can we place in a Council which permitted the airport operators to have 915 night flights per month! The attitude encapsulated in the expression "do not think it desirable" is indicative of intellectual weakness; residents can clearly not expect their Councils to take a strong and robust line on the issue of the curtailment of night flights.
It is also very doubtful that the Councils will satisfactorily monitor, manage and enforce any controls and restrictions they may try to impose on the airport operators. Southend Council has a poor record when it comes to planning enforcement, adopting a soft, line-of-least-resistance approach particularly when up against forceful operators/developers who have a keen personal interest in maximising profit for their companies.
Why should I find it worrying that the operators have opted for a length of 1,799 metres? Could it be that more restrictions and controls would apply if the runway were 1,800m long? If higher standards are required with the extra metre, then the Councils should not be allowing this blatant attempt at evasion.

In summary, I am strongly opposed to the Councils' preferred option because
The Councils have failed to explain why the preferred option was selected in the first place.
The JAAP concentrates on its own geographical area and fails to consider the impact on the wider community.
The economic justifications are spurious and lack substance.
I do not believe that the Councils will effectively enforce any restrictions that may be applied to the operation of the airport.
The loss of greenbelt is unjustified and deplorable. The greenbelt is there for a purpose and should not be denied to future generations.
The impact on the Borough's transport infrastructure would be disastrous in terms of the congestion, pollution and parking problems that will be caused.
The noise, pollution and heightened risk resulting from the increased number of flights are unacceptable.
The quality of life of Southend residents will be irrevocably damaged purely for the financial gain of the airport operators.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.