Policy LS4 - Noise Compensation and Purchase Scheme

The extended runway is already in use and I have not been offered a bean in compensation. This is an insult

People decided to purchase their homes in the area that is being affected because they wanted to live in areas that are near to good travel links but in areas that offer good standards of accomodation. Why should we know be offered noise compensation and a purchase scheme? We don't want to live elsewhere we want to stay in our homes. You can't compensate for home improvements, family links, good neighbours etc. Why can't you just leave it as it is. Its already noisy and thats with the windows closed

This section should be enhanced to show that the airport owner will settle claims for financial compensation under the 1973 Land Act in a timely manner.

The airport operators can offer no more then this

I feel compensation is rightly deserved to residence and this should be an independant body carrying this out against the position residence have been put in over noise, property de-valuation and disruption to the operating hours and aircraft no operating from the airpot.

The airport should demonstrate how they expect to satisfy the claims for compensation and what reasonable time scale they expect to adopt

After recently reading in the local paper that Southend Borough Council have received less than ten complaints about the increase in the noise pollution caused by the opening of new routes to and from the newly extended airport, I felt I had to make contact.
As a true supporter of growth in business not only for my local region but nationally, I actually support the increase of activity into the area.

However, there appears to have been no true admittance or even acknowledgement from the authority that we support financially, that those who live within the immediate vicinity have experienced negative effects to firstly, their standards of living, and secondly to the decrease in value on the property/ies that we all work so hard to retain and maintain.

I did follow several different forums during the council's consultation of the airport expansion project, but at no time can I see that it was explained to any residents just how much noise would be experienced.

In no way was it ever explained to me that from the date of the opening of the new routes, that it would never again be possible to sleep past 6.30am in my own house, although it appears that some of these flights now go the other irection on the runway.
As I'm sure that the very well resided members of the final board agreeing to the plans would appreciate, if this formed part of the mandate there would have been no expansion. Not being able to sleep past 6.30 am on any day of the week is effecting, in my eyes, my health.
How could it have been allowed for the expansion of a local business to effect daily, our ability to sleep in our own houses ?

In addition, being that the flight times ARE so disruptive, this will ultimately effect the price of our/my dwelling, that is a fact.

Is there an official compensation review being considered ? What is the council doing to assist it's residents ?

Yours tiredly,

Mr & Mrs Inskip

Why do the planes taxi right next to the houses in wells avenue when they could do it the other side where there are work units, when they return down the main runway it helps

So many peoples properties will be affected if compulsory purchase happens. The airport will never be able to be an enormous one like Heathrow or Gatwick so why inflict uncertainty to the local residents.

JAAP is covering huge area of residential places.
Southside of airport operational boundary is fully covered by houses, and most of the people who will get affected don't know about this plan.
We got to know this plan at the last moment.
Plan should be first made clear to the people who will get affected, JAAP is planned without our consideration.

I am on the flight path currently and whilst limited at the moment, it creates noise, tremors to the house and fear in wildlife( apoint that is missed)
This does not recognise the impact to residents. The offer of double glazing will not ease the issue. I have double glazing currently and still hear the noise. I have to raise the television. Also I do enjoy sitting in my garden and this will not be possible. I can not sell my property and have already lost a sustantial amount from the value of the property. This is without the extended view. Mention is made to restraining the flight times beyond 2300. This does not take account of children (I have a daughter who sleeps from 20.00 and I sleep at 2130. This also does not take account of the local school where the environment will not be conducive to learning. I experience cracks in my ceiling currently, so am very worried of future impacts to my property.

This section should be enhanced to show that the airport owner will settle claims for financial compensation under the 1973 Land Act in a timely manner.

I object to the noise and frequency of flights leaving Southend Airport very early in the morning. We are woken at around 6.20am, 7 days a week whenever a flight takes off over Leigh. Unfortunately we are unable to afford double glazing in our property and as such have to put up with the house been woken and ridiculous hours, all week. Every time there is a flight before 7.00am I fill in the compliants form on the airport site, only to be informed that there were no flights! I am not imagining the flights, and

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?

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?

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.