Policy T9 - SERT

Support

Representation ID: 4571

Received: 18/02/2009

Respondent: Mr. Michael Turbin

Having worked close to Heathrow for many years i would like to see what steps are being taken to reduce both noise and air pollution.

Support

Representation ID: 4628

Received: 20/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Trevor Webber

I support the increase in public transport.

Object

Representation ID: 4842

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

Again "expected" does not necessarily deliver anything. If these plans are so visionary for the development of the region then join up all the policies and make the transport a requirement. Don't tell me that it is dependant upon the profitability of a deregulated transport system! If we are to have a sustainable economy, to say nothing of a planet then we must change the way we approach things now!

Comment

Representation ID: 5027

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

You have my interest and I would to know more about this please.

Comment

Representation ID: 5132

Received: 12/03/2009

Respondent: Rawreth Parish Council

There is no mention of freight being moved by rail, why not, is this not something that should be explored for transportation efficiency and to reduce road traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 5198

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: 5391

Received: 20/03/2009

Respondent: Amanda Barness

No expansion please.

Support

Representation ID: 5431

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

agree fully, but not if existing roads are reduced for cars to allow for bus or sert lanes

Object

Representation ID: 5637

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

again this is only 'exoected' - not mandatory and if the borough's current public transport system is anything to go by this intended provision will be negligible

Support

Representation ID: 5659

Received: 15/05/2009

Respondent: London Southend Airport

This policy includes reference to SERT, which is now the subject of a public consultation. LSACL has a number of comments about the proposed routes which could be designed to serve the expanded airport and new employment areas, and will be making these comments to the SERT promoters.

Object

Representation ID: 5685

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: 5732

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: 5755

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs. Laura O'Connor

If this "SERT" is so good, why do we have to wait for the airport to get the go-ahead before we can have it? It seems to me that a lot of excellent proposals are suddenly becoming possible, once we have agreed to have all our lives ruined by the excess noise and pollution of living under a 24/7 flight path.

Object

Representation ID: 5784

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Gemma Cudlipp

Object to airport expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 5829

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr David Britt

Currently aircraft noise is a nuisance for 1000s of residents living under or near to flight paths. I am currently awoken by aircraft noise most days and although in sound pressure level terms the noise is not high, it is very intrusive and spoils my and many other residents quality of life.In addition noise, pollution and conjestion from any significant increase in road traffic would be inevitable. The A127 and A13 are both roads that are unable to cope with existing traffic levels.

Support

Representation ID: 5851

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: MR J GRANGER

I fully support the proposal. This would help to reduce the road congestion from private vehicle so many are un-necessarily afraid of, as well as linking other future developments in the area that may arise through the modest airport expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 5915

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: Paula Burls

Sounds like the usual old rumblings! where's the money coming from? The infrastructure needs to be changed BEFORE any expansion - not that this outrageous idea should even be considered - as our roads are overcrowded already! one huge lesson we're all learning out of this economic climate is that promises are worthless and there simply is the money there to get things going! They're currently laying off at the airport, not employing! Hardly a model for expansion!

Object

Representation ID: 5952

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Derbyshire-Fox

Object Policy T9: No to airport expansion. SERT has only come to light since airport expansion has been on the agenda - why?

Object

Representation ID: 6020

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Let's have improved public transport without the airport expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 6121

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

object to the airport expansion. Wrong place
it should carry on as it is

Object

Representation ID: 6243

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: mr david Moyse

Where on earth do they think they are going to put a " rapid transit " we already have two train lines serveing southend that cut through the towns and they are perfectly adecuate.
Their will not be the need that is being proposed our area is served enough by Stanstead which is at best only 45 mins away and the majority of the flights from Southend will end up being freight flights.

Object

Representation ID: 6285

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Christine Rose

No quarantee that this will happen only "expected" public transport around the rochford area including the airport and cherry orchard is totally inadequate now without additional pressures.

Object

Representation ID: 6301

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Jenny Hall

what a load of waffle. yes to improving current transport. No to creating a monster.

Comment

Representation ID: 6340

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: dave willats

RAPID TRANSIT MY A@#E
LOCAL POPLE SHOULD HAVE THIS NOW IF THEY NEED IT NOT AN AIRPORT TO MAKE I HAPPEN

Support

Representation ID: 6389

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Any viable and practical improvements to public transport should be encouraged.

Comment

Representation ID: 6432

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs J Greenwood

This must be from all areas and not just via southend travel centre.

Object

Representation ID: 6469

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

As above

Object

Representation ID: 6503

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 6537

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Neil Taylor

We are highly sceptical that an effective transport can be put in place given the current problems on the A127, which will be exacerbated if the high growth option is adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 6584

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.