Policy ENV3 - New Public Open Space - South

Object

Representation ID: 7210

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: 7255

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: mr graham herve

The overhead noise caused by aircraft on approach for landing, take off and circling during the day will destroy our right to enjoyment of life. The night time noise will have a detrimental effect on quality of sleep for all, therefore affecting our working/learning. The pollution will adversely affect our quality of life, not only from the aircraft but from the resulting increase in traffic on our roads.

Object

Representation ID: 7263

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Ane Bates

this appears to be a temporary open space that was cultivated land that will not be replaced in any policy statement intent,and merely stop gap to the A127 Nestuda Way to Fossets Farm.Can this really be termed new public recreation area?

Object

Representation ID: 7280

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr George Harvey

Where is this new open space?

Object

Representation ID: 7331

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: 7342

Received: 08/05/2009

Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES

ENV3:

This has to make sense and I therefore support the proposals. Presumably, it goes without saying that when the new road is eventually constructed such matters as street lighting will be designed so as not to conflict with runway approach requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 7494

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Higgs

object

Object

Representation ID: 7621

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Morris

OBJECT

Object

Representation ID: 7624

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Paul Gillard

I object that the rules can be changed when needed to fit in with new proposed developments

Object

Representation ID: 7704

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Melvyn Helsey

Too vague, open to change.

Comment

Representation ID: 7741

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Michael Powell

No comment

Comment

Representation ID: 7821

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mr. Andrew Williams

I cannot see the point in creating these new green lung areas if they are then to be polluted by the significant amounts of aviation exhaust created by the runway extension.

Object

Representation ID: 7899

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Ellen Maria O'Hara

Southend is an area which is already heavily built up. Where do the emergency landings take place? The air and noise pollution will be a total nightmare for existing residents. Where will all the traffic go? In 1966 the government refused the proposed expansion of runway 15/33 on environmental grounds - surely this argument is even stronger today - we are ALL aware of the environment problems surrounding this!

Object

Representation ID: 7900

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Ellen Maria O'Hara

Southend is an area which is already heavily built up. Where do the emergency landings take place? The air and noise pollution will be a total nightmare for existing residents. Where will all the traffic go? In 1966 the government refused the proposed expansion of runway 15/33 on environmental grounds - surely this argument is even stronger today - we are ALL aware of the environment problems surrounding this!

Object

Representation ID: 8021

Received: 11/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Geoff Dixon

I object to the expansion of the airport and the extension of the runway, therefore I also object to this change.

This open land will not be used as it will spoiled by noise, pollution and traffic problems - if the planned expansion goes ahead

Object

Representation ID: 8137

Received: 14/04/2009

Respondent: mr peter allwright

n

Object

Representation ID: 8158

Received: 14/04/2009

Respondent: Mr David Thomas

I strongly object to this stealing of green belt land to expand the airport so that it can give even more noise and pollution to the whole area. This new green lung is already green belt and seem to be only redesignated so that can be used to relocate what will be displaced by the proposed expansion, provide access roads to it or reserve access routes for further expansion. Whatever nice words are used it means less green lung, and a lot more planes and vehicles to provide pollution and noise for the whole town.

Object

Representation ID: 8192

Received: 15/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Emery

You make it sound so nice - but no thank you!

Object

Representation ID: 8404

Received: 18/04/2009

Respondent: Katherine Emery

Cynical mentioning "GREEN" in the same breath as airport expansion. Oh and we are taking GREEN BELT land !

Object

Representation ID: 8405

Received: 18/04/2009

Respondent: Katherine Emery

Cynical mentioning "GREEN" in the same breath as airport expansion. Oh and we are taking GREEN BELT land !

Support

Representation ID: 8445

Received: 18/04/2009

Respondent: mr Peter Chandler

agree

Object

Representation ID: 8547

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: Rory Emery

Strongly Object on the gorunds of:
(1) Living directly under the flightpath my quality life will be severely impacted
(2) Thought the government / councils were meant to improve the environment and not poison it
(3) Road connections to Southend are already over congested
(4) All promises of increased employment opportunities in other regional airport development have never been met.
(5) The SE already has 4 international airports for passenger travel.
(6) Investing in air travel can only be short term given oil becoming scarce / expensive in the next 10 years.

Object

Representation ID: 8548

Received: 19/04/2009

Respondent: Rory Emery

Strongly Object on the gorunds of:
(1) Living directly under the flightpath my quality life will be severely impacted
(2) Thought the government / councils were meant to improve the environment and not poison it
(3) Road connections to Southend are already over congested
(4) All promises of increased employment opportunities in other regional airport development have never been met.
(5) The SE already has 4 international airports for passenger travel.
(6) Investing in air travel can only be short term given oil becoming scarce / expensive in the next 10 years.

Object

Representation ID: 8674

Received: 20/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs susie Ash

I strongly object to ALL the proposals for the Airport expansion & redevelopment of the surrounding areas. The infrastructure will NOT support the planned numbers of passengers, and expansion of roads will only add to an already crowded environment. What will Cuckoo Corner and the A127 be like then????
Traffic in this whole area is already at total gridlock, and the airport expansion will certainly make this worse.

The increased noise & environmental pollution will affect thousands of local people.

I don't care how many new jobs they say will be created, they are not needed for this type of BAD PLANNING...

Object

Representation ID: 8799

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jack Lawmon

Every one seems to be ignoring Rayleigh, with the introduction of Nestuda way for tesco, the opening of Cherry orchard lane giving access to Rochford, The traffic jams on the A127 and the progress road traffic lights.Rayleigh and in particular Eastwood road have endured an enormous unsustainable increase in traffic. This developement will in an shape or form cause havoc and distress to the reesidents of Rayleigh and surrounding areas. I can see no requirement for this developemnt and concern for the future having observed the events surrounding other Airports such as Stanstead and Gatwick

Support

Representation ID: 8872

Received: 22/04/2009

Respondent: mr justin osborne

fully support

Object

Representation ID: 8959

Received: 23/04/2009

Respondent: Chris Poole

No matter how its presented, there is loss of green belt land, which will get concreted over

St Lawrence Park will be lost and this space was only created (made smaller) by council giving land to RBS.

Object

Representation ID: 9078

Received: 25/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Shorter

I do not think it is a good idea to destroy the small holdings. This is already green, open space. Why does the public need access to it?

Object

Representation ID: 9210

Received: 28/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Eldred

You make it sound so nice - but no thank you!

Object

Representation ID: 9619

Received: 01/05/2009

Respondent: mrs linda matthews

i do not want increased air traffic over my house, and i dont think the infrastructure around the airport could cope with the increase in use.