Policy E1 - General Development Considerations

The JAAP offers no explanation as to how achieving 2 millions passengers per annum at the airport would lead to the scale of employment in the proposed Saxon Business Park. Ryanair only employs 106 people per 1 million passengers so there is little prospect of the scale of new employment directly associated with increased aviation. The current scale of empty units within the Aviation way and other local industrial estates shows that demand remains weak and, assuming UK recovery is slow and weak, employers are more likely to seek cheaper premises than the new business parks proposed in the JAAP.

As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that the Eldon Way business park in Hockley is to be closed, relocating the businesses to the Saxon Business Park. Likewise, it must also be noted that the relocation of IPECO to the Saxon Business Park only moves jobs, this does not create new jobs.

The lack of precise explanation as to how the councils believe the thousands of new jobs are to be created shows that the JAAP is based upon mere wishful thinking that a vanity, unsustainable, carbon intensive, aviation project will somehow magic jobs out of thin air. The plan is unsound.

It is clear from figures 5.2 to 5.4 in the JAAP that the Councils are using the PSZ from the unextended runway. The runway extension will have moved the PSZ to the south west and this could prevent the proposed development of a business park at the junction of Prince Avenue and Nestuda Way.

It must also be noted that aviation is fundamentally unsustainable. It is highly likley that the finite supply of oil based aviation fuel, the substantial cost of synthetic replacements and the rapid pace of climate disruption (including flooding that will damage industrial units built on flood plains) will almost certainly result in a new national approach to polluting industries including aviation, necessitating the introduction of measures that reduce this activity. The consistent failure of the two councils to demonstrate any forward planning on the implications of climate mitigation shows exceptionally poor judgment on the part of the two councils.

Indeed the approach for Southend BC to the issue of climate change is contradictory. It has signed the Nottingham Declaration, commiting the council to reduce carbon emissions but, in fact, it plans an unprecedented increase in greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging and funding expansion at the airport.

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.

KENT ELMS TENNIS CLUB - AIRPORT EXPANSION, AVIATION WAY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE - CONSULTATION SUBMISSION

26th March 2013

Thank you for the update re the Airport expansion and Kent Elms Tennis Club - I am pleased to say that, on the whole, it appears good news.

Page 19 on the attached revised LSA proposal plan states that ...
Area-iv - Aviation Way Industrial Estate this existing business park has been identified for change because its current use is inefficient as an employment area, it has a poor environment visually and it holds further potential that could be realised.
It is intended that the tennis courts at the northern end of the estate will remain in situ and do not form part of the JAAP area.

However, it does state that it 'intends' and that it will develop the land behind and to the side as a business park.
This includes additional access/egress via a new road and junction from Cherry Orchard Lane, Aviation way/Eastwoodbury Lane together with enhancing or providing new foot and cycle paths in our vicinity.

As such we believe, as a club and freeholders, that we need to register concerns, in the areas below, as to any anticipated or known, current or future, impact on the club based on the development of the sites and any associated infrastructure works/changes

* Timeframes
o anticipated start/finish
o pre/during/post requirements [Club and contractors]
o hours of work [contractors i.e. 24/7, 9-5, weekends etc.]

* Boundaries
o distance/height of nearest buildings
o distance of any new access road/entrance from club
o access for club boundary maintenance
o emergency services access/egress

* Disruptions
o facility supplies [Water/Sewage/Electric shutdown etc.]
o access/egress - Before, during and after [Members and Works staff/vehicles/equipment]

* Restrictions of KETC use
o Before, during and after works start
o Temporary relocation to similar and local facilities for members if courts unavailable

* Environmental Impact
o noise pollution
o natural light impact
o works/business traffic pollution
o increased carbon footprint
o surrounding greenery/landscaping - repair/replacement [if required]
o site clean-up

* Financial Implications
o rate changes [Land/Facilities]
o improvements or changes to clubs boundary areas, fencing and/or access routes [if required]
o any associated costs [met by whom?]
o club freehold and replacement valuation [decision method]

* Legal Requirements
o it is an intention not a given that we stay - Development needs and proposals can change over time [Compulsory purchase implications - if required]
o changes to club freehold deeds [if required]

* Communication Channels [Who, What, When, How]
o Information/consultation timeframes
o contact points
o methods of [electronic, verbal, written, public notice etc.]

If you have any additional questions or seek further clarification please feel free to ask


Regards
Martin Powell
KETC CHAIRMAN
Mobile: 07979707961

Fully support this area for development along with allowing for flood prevention

It has not been fully explained how the creation of all these jobs relates to expansion of the airport as specific jobs are not outlined. There are already empty units at all the local business parks, and this would seem to suggest that creating any new business park would be a total waste of time and money in this current economic climate. It is expected that most of the units that would be erected anew would be taken by the companies which would be moving from Eldon Way in Hockley, moving premises but not creating new jobs

The current JAAP boundary has now been shown to a few of the residents local to this airport, conveniently making it difficult to garner information as to their intentions. The consultation is barely legally advertised, hard to read & understand, impossible time limits & obstructive to object.
They have driven through many consultations against local public opinion, questionable support & signature of outgoing Government ministers and blatant unjustifiable expenditure of public funds.
What is there to prevent JAAP from redrawing the boundary of their JAAP Area to suddenly, conveniently encompass more private residences which can then be obtained through their Compulsory Purchase rights to allow for another ill conceived money making idea ?

I think that the heavily populated arear where the airport is situated is not suitable for expansion.
With Stobart group on the verge of bankruptcy and the airport not utilising the further expansion of the terminal even with the introdution of night flighs, (when there was not to be any),this proposal is quit frankly ludicrous.
I have lived in this area of Essex for 17 years and traveled all over the world. I have never had any problem getting flights from any of the other London Aiports.
Do we realy need another big Airport which will devestate the lives of the people who live nearby and in surounding areas.
Southend and Rochford Councils have bulldozed their way through with planning without a full and proper consultation of the residents.Please do not continue on this route.
My property has been devalued by approximatley 20%. This proposal will make it worthless.

I object to any new development or building which will aid the increase of flights from this airport on the grounds that this will damage the education of children at schools adjacent to the flightpaths.I have consistantly made this point to most Southend councillors, including their leader and have asked that they read the findings of professor Stansfeld and his lancet team from Barts and the London NHS trust who researched over 2800 nine and ten year children at schools adjacent to airports. I ask that you take special note of the effect of aircraft noise on children with learning difficulties,like children attending St Christophers in Mountdale Gardens. Not to do so will, I believe show a dereliction of duty and duty of care towards those children

we do not need any additional business parks in this location. There are already many unused business premises in this area due to the recession. I also feel very strongly that flourishing businesses on the aviation way park should not be forced to relocate solely due to the expansion of this unwanted airport

we do not need any additional business parks in this location. There are already many unused business premises in this area due to the recession. I also feel very strongly that flourishing businesses on the aviation way park should not be forced to relocate solely due to the expansion of this unwanted airport

This is a vanity project which history will show will do immense damage to the local economy, the quality of life of residents and seriously damage the environment.

The JAAP offers no explanation as to how achieving 2 millions passengers per annum at the airport would lead to the scale of employment in the proposed Saxon Business Park. Ryanair only employs 106 people per 1 million passengers so there is little prospect of the scale of new employment directly associated with increased aviation. The current scale of empty units within the Aviation way and other local industrial estates shows that demand remains weak and, assuming UK recovery is slow and weak, employers are more likely to seek cheaper premises than the new business parks proposed in the JAAP.



As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that the Eldon Way business park in Hockley is to be closed, relocating the businesses to the Saxon Business Park. Likewise, it must also be noted that the relocation of IPECO to the Saxon Business Park only moves jobs, this does not create new jobs.



The lack of precise explanation as to how the councils believe the thousands of new jobs are to be created shows that the JAAP is based upon mere wishful thinking that a vanity, unsustainable, carbon intensive, aviation project will somehow magic jobs out of thin air. The plan is unsound.

The JAAP offers no explanation as to how achieving 2 millions passengers per annum at the airport would lead to the scale of employment in the proposed Saxon Business Park. Ryanair only employs 106 people per 1 million passengers so there is little prospect of the scale of new employment directly associated with increased aviation. The current scale of empty units within the Aviation way and other local industrial estates shows that demand remains weak and, assuming UK recovery is slow and weak, employers are more likely to seek cheaper premises than the new business parks proposed in the JAAP.

As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that the Eldon Way business park in Hockley is to be closed, relocating the businesses to the Saxon Business Park. Likewise, it must also be noted that the relocation of IPECO to the Saxon Business Park only moves jobs, this does not create new jobs.

The lack of precise explanation as to how the councils believe the thousands of new jobs are to be created shows that the JAAP is based upon mere wishful thinking that a vanity, unsustainable, carbon intensive, aviation project will somehow magic jobs out of thin air. The plan is unsound.

No consideration of:-
where these jobs have come from - just relocating from elsewhere in the region.
Who is being employed - locals?
What type of jobs they are temporary/part-time or full-time. Salary types? Shift work??

I SUPPORT THIS. I have nothing to add concerning this particular heading. To leave as 'No Comments' gives the impression that the writer could be a 'Don't Know' and has not got a view either way. Those who do not comment must be assumed to be in favour, however, those who object will not interpret it as such. Who the heck compiled this document?

The future of the JAAP as an employment area
The shortage of affordable industrial premises is the principle brake on the development of employment and the councils should address this problem not indulge in flashy vanity projects. The developers of shiny new industrial estates expect too high a rent to make them affordable to start-up companies. Most of these are forced to start life in disused barns or church halls if they can find them. The document offers no explanation as to how achieving 2 million passenger a year at the Airport would lead to employment in the proposed Saxon Business Park. The A319s operated by easyJet have minimal galley space and serve no hot meals on their short flights. There would be no requirement to have catering facilities to provide in-flight meals for their aircraft at Southend. Ryanair only employ 106 staff for every 1 million passenger carried. The re-location of IPECO to the Saxon Business Park would only move jobs not create them and leave premises in the Aviation Way empty. Rochford Rural District Council has closed and demolished the Foundry Industrial Area and is planning the same for the Eldon Way Business Park; both in Hockley. It is reasonable to conclude that there is not a shortage of such provision locally especially as that in Aviation Way is not fully occupied. If the recommendations of R&D Report 9636 to radically change the shape of the Public Safety Zone is adopted this could prevent the proposed development of a business park at the junction of Prince Avenue and Nestuda Way. The Submission Draft in this section is as outlined above unbalanced. The Submission Draft must be balanced to be lawful

I have no idea at this juncture and without seeking legal advice, what is and isn't unsound with the DPD.

What I do know is I bought this property for my mother several years ago and she moved in expecting it to be the last house she lived in. Please look at where her house is situated. This is an urgent problem and has caused her a serious lack of quality of life, mainly health issues. Even the landing lights are opposite her bedroom window and the noise, air quality, safety and dilapidation of the property due to cracks in the structure because of being located directly under the flight path, due to wake and turbulence and vortex damage.

I am devastated at witnessing her failing health which has been attributed to living directly under the flight path and being a victim to all the factors mentioned above.