Policy ENV4 - Country Park; Access and Facilities

Object

Representation ID: 4766

Received: 27/02/2009

Respondent: Mr Chris Russell

Does this mean that access to the Country Park will not come without the Airport Expansion. Many people I speak to have heard of the Park but have no idea how to visit it, where to park etc. Current signage is hopeless, the Council seems to have wasted a mass of money on an unfinished pet project and now wants the Airport expansion to bail them out!

Object

Representation ID: 4847

Received: 03/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Towler

Again if you just "expect" business in difficult economic times to make contributions, nothing will happen. This policy should make it a requirement that a visitor centre be provided before the business park can be opened.

Support

Representation ID: 5031

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

Good idea I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5041

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr W Hill

An Environmental and visitor centre enclosed and surrounded by industrial estates, roads carrying heavy goods traffic and an airport.Will the proposals include provision for visitors to be given ear protectors and face masks on entry? That is always providing they can gain access through the congestion. This is clearly a white elephant.

Object

Representation ID: 5146

Received: 12/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs S Clark

We don't need new roads in our area. We need more countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 5202

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: 5213

Received: 14/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs D Davies

Who in their right mind would site a country park in the middle of industrial/business parks? The addition of several access roads created for the benefit of huge articulated lorries & bus services as well as passenger 'private' transport will not enhance the environmental utopia we are being told would be created for us.

Support

Representation ID: 5435

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

ok, not sure this proposed dev should have to contribute as this was planned and agreed prior to this JAAP, would prefer money from JAAP area to assist land south of Eastwoodbury cresent

Object

Representation ID: 5642

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

again the developers are only 'expected' to make a 'contribution' and the construction of junctions and access roads across existing green belt land just to get to a small, recently planted bit of woodland and a very unattractive manmade lake is hardly environmentally friendly. And just where are all the visitors to the new centre going to park?

Object

Representation ID: 5689

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: 5736

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: 5781

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Gemma Cudlipp

I don't think a visitor centre/country park within such close proximity to a freight airport is really a practical idea... who came up with this one???

Object

Representation ID: 5896

Received: 28/03/2009

Respondent: mr nigel cottis

Great, i'd love to spend a relaxing summers afternoon in a "country park" listening to the roar of the modern jet engine.
Country park is developers speak for legitimate backhander to sweeten the deal for the local electorate

Object

Representation ID: 6024

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

to airport expansion

Object

Representation ID: 6026

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

Good idea, but the wrong setting for a country park.

Object

Representation ID: 6126

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

Who wants a visitor centre, what are they visiting?

Object

Representation ID: 6287

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Christine Rose

Again dependent on someone else paying! if no funding is forthcoming what will happen to these proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 6393

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree.

Object

Representation ID: 6473

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

This should be provided regardless of the proposal

Object

Representation ID: 6507

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: 6588

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: 6667

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6724

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Sarah Hodder

How hilariously funny! Indeed, who came up with this one? More like, leave them a bit of grass, plant a few weedy trees, tarmac a few paths maintain them for a few years (with our taxpayers money), then scrap the lot and build on it all later when visitors dwindle to quieter corners of the county for their afternoon strolls and the land is then surplus to public requirement and voila a new housing estate! Seen it happen before dear Council...

Object

Representation ID: 6737

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 6948

Received: 06/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Carson

The Cherry Orchard country Park is in danger of becoming urbanised by light pollution from the airport and nearby proposed industrial areas. Strict planning control must be inforced to limit the detrimental effect on the night sky from light pollution. Increased light pollution will cause the loss of amenity of the night sky to residents for many miles around the airport and will have a detrimental effect on wildlife habitats within the country park.

Object

Representation ID: 6953

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: 7166

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A James

This is a requirement but should not be supplied on the back of loosing greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 7231

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: 7332

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: 7343

Received: 08/05/2009

Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES

ENV4:

I really like the sound of this. Ample provision must be made for pedestrians and cyclists. All junctions should be 'cycle friendly'.