Policy LS6 - Public Safety Zones

Totally object to any further extension of the runway, it has already been increased enough allowing for noisier aircraft to Land.

St Cedds church and the Blenheim school are in the public safety zone. A report published by the Aviation Environmental Federation in 2011 criticised Southend Council for failing to properly evaluate the increase of third party risk to residents within the PSZs. The CAA's survey revealed that the 28 hectares of land that includes St Cedds church and Blenheim school penetrate the obstacle plane. This could well lead to a revision to the airport licence removing the ILS capacity from runway 06 or requiring the runway to be reduced to its original length.

The scale of this risk to the continuing growth in passenger numbers that is supported by the two councils shows the grave shortcomings of the reports on which the planning consent for expansion was granted. The failure of the JAAP document to properly address these issues shows that the two councils are likely to repeat the errors made previously.

The JAAP should be amended to reflect the professional advice available in: 1. Airport Risk and the Public Interest: Draft National Planning Policy Framework Oct 2011 - Aviation Environment Federation. 2. PSZs: current policy and the case for change: Aviation Environment Federation and 3. The Sky's the Limit: Policies for sustainable aviation: The Institute of Public Policy Research (The IPPR considers that PSZs should be retitled Public Health and Safety Zones and calls on government to amend the flawed PSZ policy.

On page 38 the JAAP refers to the runway being 1,905 metres but the declared length is in fact 1,799. There are technical details relating to the construction of the runway base but the JAAP needs to be corrected. The JAAP ought also to make it clear that the runway is narrow, imposing crosswind restrictions on aircraft such as the Airbus A319. It is important that all understand the restrictions that exist upon operations at the airport.

The airport has required this extension for many years and finally we have the right people operating the airport who have accieved it

I keep hearing i am now in the "KIll Zone"

Flawed - Belfairs and other open space and residence in surrounding area are put at great risk by large aircraft passing over in close proximity to properties and public

There is a proposal to develop farming land on the corner of Nestuda Way and the A127. This was formerly in the PSZ and nothing has changed in that respect, as far as I can see. This proposed development is immediately adjacent to the runway and is currently used for crop production. Covering this land in development is dangerous and ill-advised. Our current crop has been devastated by floods and an extremely long winter. Every inch of spare land should be cultivated as a precaution against further disruption. It is safer to have a field that grows crops next to a flight path than it is to have an industrial site.

Residents living under or close to the flightpath already feel unsafe. If anyone from the Councils has actually seen how close to rooftops aircraft are when flying over the Somerset estate you will understan why. It should be recognised that there is a hill to the South West side of the airport which means that aircraft are always close to ground level - this never seems to be a consideration. Flights are not only close to residents but also schools (Thomas Moore and Westcliff High). This is accident waiting to happen!

These are all out of date.
There are schools and churches in the psz.

What happens when a plane crashes

St Cedds church and the Blenheim school are in the public safety zone. A report published by the Aviation Environmental Federation in 2011 criticised Southend Council for failing to properly evaluate the increase of third party risk to residents within the PSZs. The CAA's survey revealed that the 28 hectares of land that includes St Cedds church and Blenheim school penetrate the obstacle plane. This could well lead to a revision to the airport licence removing the ILS capacity from runway 06 or requiring the runway to be reduced to its original length.

The scale of this risk to the continuing growth in passenger numbers that is supported by the two councils shows the grave shortcomings of the reports on which the planning consent for expansion was granted. The failure of the JAAP document to properly address these issues shows that the two councils are likely to repeat the errors made previously.

The JAAP should be amended to reflect the professional advice available in: 1. Airport Risk and the Public Interest: Draft National Planning Policy Framework Oct 2011 - Aviation Environment Federation. 2. PSZs: current policy and the case for change: Aviation Environment Federation and 3. The Sky's the Limit: Policies for sustainable aviation: The Institute of Public Policy Research (The IPPR considers that PSZs should be retitled Public Health and Safety Zones and calls on government to amend the flawed PSZ policy.

On page 38 the JAAP refers to the runway being 1,905 metres but the declared length is in fact 1,799. There are technical details relating to the construction of the runway base but the JAAP needs to be corrected. The JAAP ought also to make it clear that the runway is narrow, imposing crosswind restrictions on aircraft such as the Airbus A319. It is important that all understand the restrictions that exist upon operations at the airport.

Already the development contravenes such a zone with the A127, Tesco's etc

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.

There are a number of documents available by downloading from the Web relating to Third Party Risk around airport and the Public Safety Zone (PSZ). None of them were included in the Evidence Base on which the Submission Draft was based. The council was required to undertake an assessment of increased Third Party Risk before permission to extend the runway was granted and they failed to do so.

Without this information the Submission Draft was not sufficiently well informed to make sound judgements. This has led to the discovery by the CAA survey for the Aerodrome Obstacle Chart (February 2012) of a penetration of the obstacle plane (a theoretical surface generated by rules set by CAP168) of an area of terrain (28 Hectares) stretching from St Cedds Church to Blenhiem School. As the entire area of ground penetrates the plane every building in it must be a penetration. The CAA only identifies the spire of St Cedds Church as an individual penetration.

The position of the PSZs shown on the Proposals Map is in the wrong position for the 06 runway. It is in the position for the runway before it was extended. This is more critical in the case of the landing PSZ that is the narrow triangle. Moving further to the west means that more housing is included. As it was that shown for the shorter runway it must now be made larger because aircraft flying from the Airport are now larger and more frequent. This in turn will add to the number of houses affected. By cropping the map to exclude a large part of Leigh and showing only a small part of the 06 landing PSZ this has been concealed in a most disgraceful manner.

These are a number of the relevant documents downloaded from the Web to which I have been able to refer not included in the Evidence Base:-

- The Aviation Environmental Federation (AEF) report Airport Risk and the Public Interest to Draft National Planning Policy Framework October 2011 Daniel Hewitt.

- The Aviation Environmental Federation (AEF) report Public Safety Zones: current policy and the case for change.

- The Sky's the Limit: Policies for sustainable Aviation the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)

- R&D Report 9636 Third Party Risk near Airport and Public Safety Zone Policy.

- Department for Transport D f T Circular 1/2002 Control of Development in Airport Public Safety Zones.

R&D Report 9636 proposes a radical change to the shape of PSZs based on actual statistics and positions of crashes at a number of UK airports. If adopted it will increase the length of three busy roads and the railway line that will fall within the new PSZ. It will also increase the number of people living within the PSZ. The Submission Draft purports to be relevant up to 2020 therefore it cannot ignore these forthcoming developments.

Daniel Hewitt of the Aviation Environmental Federation in their report of October 2011 was particularly critical of Southend Council for failing to sufficiently evaluate Third Party Risks for their residents affected before granting planning consent to extend the runway.

The failure to consult the reports listed above amounts to a lack of due diligence. This with the error identified makes the Submission Draft unbalanced and unlawful.