Policy E2 - Aviation Way Industrial Estate

Electricity feeds to most if not all existing sites in Aviation Way come from the airport at exorbitant rates that are over double market supply rates. This is not sustainable for future development and therefore access to market supplies must form part of the development proposals if the area is to meet the desired improvements stated. The need for new cabling mains should form part of the planning process.

The access to the estate would be far better if there was a direct link to Cherry Orchard Way from the dog leg bend in Aviation Way.
There is no gas on the estate & the electricity direct from the Airports own private supply is prohibitively expensive, putting off new businesses considering locating on the estate. The new jobs will not materialise unless a new, publicly accessible electricty supply is installed as an absolute priority

The shortage of affordable industrial premises is the principle brake on the development of new employment opportunities. The owners of brand new buildings on industrial estates typically seek higher rents than other older areas so, given the tough economic climate, it is simply wishful thinking for the two councils to make the overly optimistic employment projections that they do. What is needed is for the two local authorities to concentrate their efforts on addressing the key issue of rent, rather than the vanity, unsustainable Southend Airport project upon which it continues to squander £millions of public money.
The JAAP seeks to increase greenhouse gas emissions thereby increasing the liklihood of extreme weather events that will increase flooding of property on flood plains. The thinking of the two councils is so seriously flawed and counter-productive that it poses unacceptable risks to local business and the population at large.

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

A n area that at present under uterlised and further use of this site would be benifical

If there is a flood risk in the current wave of climate change, it should have been identified before this current consultation was begun, otherwise the whole exercise is a waste of time and money.

Classes B1 and B2 have not been sufficiently explained.

Small parts to the south of this area lie within Flood Zones 2 and 3. We are pleased to note this is considered on page 26 of the JAAP submission document. We are also pleased that a sequential approach will be taken, with development in the first instance to be directed to areas of the Estate which are in Flood Zone 1, and that all applications which fall within Flood Zones 2 and 3 will be required to be supported by a Flood Risk Assessment.

However, previously, in our representations for the Preferred Options document, we stated that 'if the allocation is carried forward to the final submission document without evidence that the sequential test has been applied, we would question the soundness of the allocation.' At this stage, no evidence has been submitted to show that the Sequential Test has been passed and we therefore consider this policy to be unsound.

The shortage of affordable industrial premises is the principle brake on the development of new employment opportunities. The owners of brand new buildings on industrial estates typically seek higher rents than other older areas so, given the tough economic climate, it is simply wishful thinking for the two councils to make the overly optimistic employment projections that they do. What is needed is for the two local authorities to concentrate their efforts on addressing the key issue of rent, rather than the vanity, unsustainable Southend Airport project upon which it continues to squander £millions of public money.



The JAAP seeks to increase greenhouse gas emissions thereby increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events that will increase flooding of property on flood plains. The thinking of the two councils is so seriously flawed and counter-productive that it poses unacceptable risks to local business and the population at large.

The shortage of affordable industrial premises is the principle brake on the development of new employment opportunities. The owners of brand new buildings on industrial estates typically seek higher rents than other older areas so, given the tough economic climate, it is simply wishful thinking for the two councils to make the overly optimistic employment projections that they do. What is needed is for the two local authorities to concentrate their efforts on addressing the key issue of rent, rather than the vanity, unsustainable Southend Airport project upon which it continues to squander £millions of public money.

The JAAP seeks to increase greenhouse gas emissions thereby increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events that will increase flooding of property on flood plains. The thinking of the two councils is so seriously flawed and counter-productive that it poses unacceptable risks to local business and the population at large.

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?

see previous comments on no need for more un let bussiness premises within the 2 council areas.

if you cannot fill/let the current bussiness premises, why destroy green belt to build more. There is no need for this & the airport will attract nothing like the oft quoted 6300 jobs