Policy ENV5 - Green Corridor to Business Park

Comment

Representation ID: 4529

Received: 17/02/2009

Respondent: Mr K Hatfield

The business park must be screened via appropriate landscaping if it is not to become a blight on the landscape of the District. Many local views for example from Gusted Hall woods will be affected by this development.

Support

Representation ID: 4867

Received: 04/03/2009

Respondent: MR J GRANGER

This is a good proposal

Support

Representation ID: 5032

Received: 09/03/2009

Respondent: Mr K Meikle

I fully support.

Object

Representation ID: 5203

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: 5436

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs A Wate

good idea

Object

Representation ID: 5643

Received: 25/03/2009

Respondent: karen sutherland

we all know what roadside landscaping looks like - a few sticks in plastic tubes...hardly a green corridor

Object

Representation ID: 5690

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: 5737

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: 5738

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: 5783

Received: 26/03/2009

Respondent: Gemma Cudlipp

A new public open space this close to a freight airport would sadly not be used. Gasp - do you think people would realise this in, say, a few years, and convert the underutilised space into something more useful/profitable for the airport? And blame local people for not wanting to picnic in the path of a freight plane!!! World gone mad.

Object

Representation ID: 6027

Received: 29/03/2009

Respondent: Mr Derek Waddy-Smith

to airport expansion and therefore this.

Object

Representation ID: 6127

Received: 31/03/2009

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Spencer

Object

Support

Representation ID: 6394

Received: 02/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Pacey

Agree.

Object

Representation ID: 6474

Received: 03/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Ian Bartley

As above

Object

Representation ID: 6508

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 6555

Received: 04/04/2009

Respondent: Deb Pacey

Again I have questions about roads running through green areas. Does this not seem to be a bit of a contradiction?

Object

Representation ID: 6590

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: 6668

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Heath Aldridge

Traffic concerns / property prices devaluation

Object

Representation ID: 6738

Received: 05/04/2009

Respondent: Charles Wetton

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

Object

Representation ID: 6954

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: 6955

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: 7167

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr A James

The rugby club is fine where it is.

Object

Representation ID: 7211

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: 7285

Received: 07/04/2009

Respondent: Mr George Harvey

Where is the need for a new business park considering the existing business parks are not fully occupied - Is there not a propaganda machine at work here? Building a new business park does not ensure jobs! Especially in the current climate of recession!

Object

Representation ID: 7333

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: 7344

Received: 08/05/2009

Respondent: Mr. Terence DAVIES

ENV5:

Fully support this policy which must provide for pedestrians and cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 7498

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Higgs

object

Object

Representation ID: 7626

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: 7659

Received: 08/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Melvyn Helsey

I object that the rules can be changed when needed to fit in with new proposed developments. This is too vague.

Comment

Representation ID: 7743

Received: 09/04/2009

Respondent: Mr Michael Powell

No comment