Policy ENV1 - Revised green belt boundary

Green belt land is important. So provided the Green belt is amended to support growth and prosperity to the area then I support it.

We should not be losing any of our greenbelt land around this area. We like our little communities and dont want to become another suburb of London. I speak from experience having moved from NW Kent due to the overcrowding and overly busy roads etc.

The council are extendin g the Jubilee park so any trade off with green belt is not a problem to me.

Green belt has major environmental issues and should be maintained not lost for gain of profit by major companies - a green belt environment contributes greatly to quality of life of residents

I obect to the expansion of the MRO on noise grounds and therefore I consider any revision to the Green Belt as unnecessary and undesirable.

Green Belt boundaries exist so that green open space is preserved. There must be no redefining of the boundary so that development occurs in the very areas the green belt was set up to defend.

The green belt exists to preserve open space. Redefining the boundaries to enable development is counter intuitive.

If green belt boundaries can be amendedwhat is the green belt for? Will the new boundaries be guaranteed or will in a few years it be decided that it is necessary to expand the park and ride or develop Hall road? Your policies keep mentioning sustainability. For how long can these plans be sustained?

Environment - General comments

Sustainable Design and Construction of an expanded airport

The design and construction of the expanded airport can contribute towards mitigation of the environmental impacts of expansion.

Low emission machinery can be used onsite during construction. eg the Boston Big Dig project (http://www.masspike.com/bigdig/background/airpollution.html). We would expect the new terminal buildings to meet 'BREEAM' excellent. This is a standard we expect in non-residential development across the Thames Gateway. A target should be set for a minimum 20% recyclable materials and sourcing of materials locally. Design of the buildings should utilise passive ventilation and minimise requirement for artificial lighting.

Page 25 mentions energy saving technology, this should go further and set a challenging policy to generate energy. Miniature turbines have been demonstrated at Airports in the US and could be successful in this estuary location. Alternately solar energy may meet the expanded airports needs.

We are pleased that Page 25 refers to the use of SUDS for all new development. This would not only ensure reduction in surface water run-off but would also improve the water quality. There may be biodiversity benefits as well, depending on the type of SUDS selected, e.g. swales and attenuation ponds.

Water Resources and Waste Water Infrastructure

Airport Expansion and the proposed new business units will increase the pressure on water resources in the Region. Rainwater Harvesting and water recycling systems should be considered as part of the overall drainage and water management strategy at either area or site wide level. The JAAP should be setting a challenging policy to restrict additional water use within the plan area, perhaps in Policy LS2. New demand could be offset by a retrofitting program of existing residential properties in Rochford and Southend-on-Sea.

Where new infrastructure is required to meet extra demand for water supply or sewage treatment, it must be funded and implemented in step with development.

Sustainable Design of new business areas

We would expect new employment areas to meet 'BREEAM' excellent, with a target set for minimum recyclable materials and a target for renewable energy generation.
Green and Brown roofs could be used to maximise the biodiversity value of these new business units.

Ecological Enhancement

The plan should also be seeking to enhance biodiversity through development in accordance with PPS1 and PPS9. This will involve retaining existing natural features within any development and seeking opportunities to create new habitats and link in with existing adjacent habitats. The Essex Biodiversity Project has produced an informative guide called: 'Integrating Biodiversity into development...realising the benefits'. This is available on their website: www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk.

Enhancement of river corridors

There may be opportunities for the proposals to deliver on Thames Gateway South Essex green grid strategy.

The Noblesgreen ditch runs alongside i, ii(b) and ii(c). Areas that already serve as flood attenuation and storage areas should be safeguarded for this purpose and the opportunities from their use maximised. There may be opportunities to enhance the river corridor particularly through sites ii(b) ii (c). This opportunity should be addressed in the policies for these 2 sites.

The Eastwood Brook runs through sites iii, iv, iv and x. The plan should identify opportunities to enhance the biodiversity of the Eastwood Brook and improve natural processes. Again this opportunity is presented on site xi with the tributary of the Eastwood Brook.

Green belt isn't actually being lost, but traded. I don't see a problem with that.

Green belt should remain exactely that. And should not be overturned at a whim in order for the council to pocket extra money. This is ridiculous!

Where in this policy are the wider environmental implications of airport expansion being considered? Everyone, even the US Government now accepts that airplanes are a major contributory factor in devastating climate change. That's why the expansion at Heathrow is so opposed. We should all be aware that not only will the expansion of Southend airport affect the quality of people's lives in the area now - green corridors my arse! - but it will contribute to the devastation of the planet for out children and grandchildren. It is plane-stupid - Essex should wake up.

Dear Mr Hollingworth

On behalf of our client (Aber Ltd) we have reviewed the London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan - Preferred Options (February 2009), which has been prepared jointly between Rochford District Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.

Having read the document we would wish to offer our general support to the principles contained within the Joint Area Action Plan, and we would make the following points:

The strategic and local importance of the airport to this area is recognised and in order to reach its potential as a local regional airport, it is essential that airport is able to expand. Of particular importance is the need to extend the runway (as this would increase its attractiveness to fixed based operators), provide new passenger facilities, a park and ride facility and new train station to serve the airport; only with these essential improvements will the airport be able to transport the anticipated capacity of 2 million passengers per annum.

The airport is a major employment location and its expansion will make significant contributions towards the sub-regional employment opportunities (circa 7,380 new jobs). These new jobs will be in both aviation related businesses (including maintenance, repair and overhaul) and general businesses in the adjoining and expanded business parks, which will provide modern, and sustainable office accommodation.

In order to accommodate the expansion to the airport and the associated business park development, it is necessary to allocate and protect key areas of land in the proximity of the airport for the purposed uses and key infrastructure. It is accepted that this will necessitate the need to revise the Green Belt boundary to accommodate the growth of the airport.

Kind regards

I support.

Green belt land can not be 'traded'. Once it has been lost it disappears for ever. Since Cherry Orchard Lane has been upgraded we have seen a gradual loss of farm land and countryside. The term 'creating a green lung' is misleading as it leads us to believe that this proposal is environmentally friendly when in fact green belt land and open spaces are being reduced.

I object to any change to the green belt

Amendment by convenience. Not an option. Allowing green belt to be compromised is the thin edge of the wedge.

The green belt in our area is being reduced already with the new housing development planned. If this development takes away our countryside no amount of redistribution is going to give it to us back. It will be gone. This is a huge plan, far too great for this congested corner of Essex to absorb.

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.

The environmental impact related to the loss of greenbelt and open spaces is controlled and offset by provision of supplementary public open spaces in the vicinity

unfortunate but necessary, can Rochford not put some other piece of land into green belt?

The green belt should not be amended to the convenience of big business. AS usual local residents will suffer

object to expansion of the airport. The current greenbelt should be defended.

I object to any further development on any greenbelt land.

totally object, how dare they talk about generously providing 'a green lung for the area' when they are going to concrete over acres of green belt land?

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

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!!!

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.

The Green Belt should be sacrosanct.

"Revising" the green belt actually means reducing green spaces. After all, if they are green already, we are not gaining by their being dubbed "Green Belt" and if they are not green already, from where will they be obtained? Brand new green areas can never replace mature ones; not for decades, anyway. Wildlife and peolpe will suffer if the Green Belt is disrupted. If the airport expansion were to be dropped, none of this would need to be discussed at all.

DON'T TOUCH THE GREEN BELT - THIS IS THE THIN EDGE OF THE WEDGE.