MM34

I am responding to your letter concerning the above modifications to the planning of the Southend Airport, with this in mind I would like to acquaint you with my observations, although I did respond to the initial consultation document a few years ago saying that in my opinion as the developers wish to build a rail station at the airport, there would be a need for a bus interchange to be located on the Southend Road side of the new property. This will then provide an integrated transport system.

This in turn would reduce the private vehicle movements accessing the rail station in the area of Southend Road and Warner's Bridge. As I believed that having a rail station located at the airport, the rail station will in time attract passengers from the local and wider community, and this is clearly evident with other airports, like Stansted.

I now possibly understand why this suggestion was not acted upon; however with further expansion of the airport in and around the airport perimeters now or in the future, together with if I understand correctly, proposals for further residential development within the Rochford and Southend area, including the proposed development before Southend Borough Council at the Prittlebrook Estate. Together with a possible new business park in Rochford, the rail station will undoubtedly attract people who not only will be living in the new properties and commuting to London, but could also attract the people who will be employed at the new business parks, who will be commuting to and from the station located at the airport to their place of work.

There has been an increase in traffic congestion in the area of the Southend Road and Warner's Bridge and the roads leading from Warner's Bridge and this will only escalate in future years.

I would like to propose that as part of the decision making process with regard to this consultation, that provision should be made for a bus interchange to be located outside the entrance to the rail station to accommodate the bus services (no. 7 8 and 9) which at present operate within the immediate area of the airport boundary.

The street lighting in the road leading from the main road to the rail station does need to be improved together with the accessibility for the pedestrian to cross the main road outside the airport.

As an inducement for the bus operator to reroute the bus services into the airport rail station there should be a financial contribution (section 106) placed upon the developers now and in the future.

If this is achieved we will then have an integrated transport system which will benefit the residents of Rochford and Southend for generations to come.

Can you please keep me informed of your decision with regard to the above consultation and any future developments in connection with the above location?

Thank you for notifying Essex County Council of the above consultation. The following is the response from Essex County Council (ECC) to Rochford District Council and Southend Borough Council concerning the above Schedule of Proposed Modifications, covering matters relevant to ECCs statutory service provision and its function as Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. The response does not cover ECC as a landowner and/or prospective developer. A separate response will be made on these matters (if relevant) and that response should be treated in the same way as a response from other developers and/or landholders.

ECC welcomes the opportunity to continue to work with both authorities and the Airport, in respect of the on going re-development within South Essex. Overall ECC supports the proposed amendments in principle, which seek to address a number of our earlier concerns, as well as providing the necessary factual updates and clarification to reflect planning permission 09/01960/FULM for the runway expansion at London Southend Airport.

Please find enclosed a schedule of specific ECC comments, observations and recommendations in response to the proposed Main Modification.

I would also like to draw your attention to the comments below, including the specific recommendations and necessary actions required in relation to the Historic Environment.

Historic Environment

Overall support the proposed approach in principle, for the inclusion of an additional criteria across a number of policies, however recommend a slight change to the suggested wording to read as follows:

Proposals should consider and appropriately address the impact on heritage assets (delete 'or' and replace with including) below ground archaeology. (MM2, MM11 and MM27)

Policy LS2 (last bullet) it is recommended that the wording of the last bullet point is reworded and should be deleted and replaced as follows:

Delete

Consider and appropriately address the impact on heritage assets or below ground consideration

Replace with

Identify the significance of heritage assets impacted by the development and identify appropriate mitigation strategies to protect and/or record them.

The above historic environment recommendations are considered necessary factual corrections to clarify the position in compliance with the NPPF and to ensure the policies are effective. Subject to the above changes ECC has no objections to the Proposed Modifications.

Highways and Transportation

The updates and revisions within MM31, MM32, MM33, MM34 and MM35 are noted and the additional text within MM35 (last bullet) regarding the cycle network is supported.

In respect of the Airports Surface Access Strategy (MM15), ECC support the recognition of the need to update the Strategy and note that this is currently being undertaken within the scope of the planning permission.

General Comments

The inclusion of the following additional policy text across multiple policies is supported:
"The potential detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby dwellings (e.g. noise) will need to be carefully considered and suitably mitigated against" (ref: MM2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 11).

It is noted that the proposed changes removing the reference to the number of 'Jobs' and retention of 'floorspace' within policies is an appropriate update given that the detail is retained within the Plans supporting text (MM2, MM3 etc).

It is recommended that the summary list of policies on Page 23 are updated to reflect the changes set out within the Schedule of Proposed Modifications.

ECC support the clarification and re-numbering of the Saxon Business Park phased development, within the Plan and Proposals Map.

ECC welcome the attached SA/SEA Addendum looking at the potential impacts resulting from the Schedule of Proposed Modifications to the JAAP. The approach effectively screens each MM for an impact on the previous SA, which is a welcomed and through approach. The content and deductions made appear adequate and reasonable.

Overall ECC is supportive of the proposed modifications, subject to the above comments. Please contact me if you would like to discuss these comments further.