Policy ENV2 - New Public Open Space - North

Object

Representation ID: 4781

Received: 01/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Stuart Grant

This is not new open space. This is existing agricultural land, being replaced with a sports ground so that the existing sports ground can be developed as a business park.

The appearance of current open space benefits from a the variety of land uses that occupy it. The overall result of the JAAP is a loss of agricultural land, so that remaining open space is either sports fields or parkland. There is a loss of variety.

There must be no overall loss of open space and no loss of agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 4844

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

While I would be happy for Westcliff RC to use this space, in environmental terms the area is already green as agricultural land so the net effect is a reduction through the loss of the existing pitches of the club.

Support

Representation ID: 5029

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

Great idea I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5039

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr W Hill

Have Westcliff Rugby Club been consulted? Do the proposals provide for facilities that match those currently available to the club? Is not the new area of public open space proposed to be created on land that was, and is currently an open space of countryside and farm land?

Object

Representation ID: 5121

Received: 11/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

A new public open space with provision for a rugby club, so it won't all be open space. Mention of a footpath/cycleway but no mention of car parking facilities. This is reliant on funding by the development of the business park & Northern MRO extension. Says it all.

Object

Representation ID: 5200

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: 5433

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

could this not be green belt if not already? should be laid out as parkland for the future with really good landscaping and ponds etc with majestic trees, as was done in years gone by!

Object

Representation ID: 5640

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

just a 'box ticking' after thought really...so far away that most residents would have to drive to it and if it is to be funded solely by the development not likely to be much of an attraction

Object

Representation ID: 5687

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: 5734

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: 5780

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Gemma Cudlipp

I would not want my husband or son playing rugby so close to a (planned to be) busy airport; they won't be able to hear each other speak every time a plane comes past, not to mention the noise and smell. Don't move the rugby club - don't expand the airport.

Support

Representation ID: 5814

Received: 27/03/2009

Respondent: Mr T Clark

This is a sensible change to land use designation, ensuring a 'no cross' line is in place for the future, whilst allowing economic development in the JAAP region.

Object

Representation ID: 6022

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Loss of open public space.

Object

Representation ID: 6124

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

Open space that we have is just fine,

Object

Representation ID: 6286

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Christine Rose

Dependent on funding by "business developer" once again no guarantee that this will happen. There is no funding for any infrastructure outside of the airport.

Object

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: mr kevin brodhurst

who is going to use these areas with dirty great planes chucking out noise and fumes next to you.

Object

Representation ID: 6337

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: dave willats

LOCAL PEOLE BEING BOUGHT OFF WITH A FIELD

Object

Representation ID: 6339

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: jenny barton

I have two boys who play rugby at Westcliff Rugby club.If you want to move the rugby club move it somewhere away from the airport where my boys and hundreds of others will not be breathing in the fumes of aviation fuel and car fumes from the increased amount of traffic this airport will bring.This development will ruin the enjoyment and health of hundreds of young and old alike.

Support

Representation ID: 6391

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree

Object

Representation ID: 6396

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Robert Davenport

Air pollution and noise levels would probably make the open space a 'no go' area. Playing rugby under a flight path! This on face value sounds like a tactical sweetener with a sting in it's tail.

Object

Representation ID: 6471

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

This is not needed

Object

Representation ID: 6505

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: David Emery

So an expanded airport is good for the environment? We have few clean green an open spaces in the crowded SE. Can we please just except you cannot squeeze in more pollution (noise, carbon emmissions, concrete infrstructure) without significant impact on the quality of peoples lives.

Object

Representation ID: 6586

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: 6664

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6736

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Charles Wetton

This is a token gesture to appease the local community for the damage and disruption that would follow this expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 6951

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.

Object

Representation ID: 7163

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A James

These open spaces already exist.

Object

Representation ID: 7209

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: West Leigh Junior School

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy the learning and teaching environment which West Leigh Junior School has successfully created over the past 50 years. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for our students, therefore affecting their learning potential. The pollution will adversely affect the quality of life for students, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic on the roads.

Object

Representation ID: 7330

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Kylie Heath

The proposed airport extension would have an adverse effect on the local town. The area is simply too built up with local housing to support the extension. It is too late to try to extend the airport without ruining the quality of life of thousands of people.

Support

Representation ID: 7340

Received: 08/05/2009

Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES

ENV2:

This is all refreshingly very ambitious and deserves full support. I particularly like the intended new footpath/cycleway provision.