London Southend Airport & Environs Joint Area Action Plan Issues & Options Paper

Object

Representation ID: 1428

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

The JAAP document explains that current airport re-development is in progress and that this will theoretically enable up to 1 million passengers per annum to use the airport by 2012 to 2015. This is around 30 times greater than the number of passengers who passed through the airport in 2006. Whilst analysis also suggests that the airport could reach a maximum, albeit highly optimistic capacity of 2 million passengers per annum by 2030 based on the existing restricted runway length, does the JAAP plan area even have the 'environmental capacity' to accommodate this level of growth?

Object

Representation ID: 1429

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Let alone even higher growth that is based upon lengthening the runway and making the airport attractive to a great many more operators, given the aircraft types that could then be operated fully laden from the airport.

Object

Representation ID: 1430

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

This is a fundamental issue that must be addressed in the JAAP and therefore the Submission Plan should be putting forward a strategy that is realistic in this regard. It would appear that employment growth and regeneration is still possible (particularly based upon renewing existing poor accommodation) without major expansion and development of the airport itself, given that the evidence base shows that there are many long standing businesses and that proximity to the airport is not an important factor for the majority of businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 1431

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Furthermore the JAAP document does outline approaches to employment growth that are not wholly dependent upon an airport focus.

Object

Representation ID: 1432

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

In evaluating the options, the JAAP should be able to demonstrate that the SA has been utilised to rule out for environmental reasons, alternatives that are not capable of being delivered.

Object

Representation ID: 1433

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Implementation and Monitoring Framework

Tests of soundness (paragraph 5.2 of PPS 12, 2008) requires that there are clear mechanisms for implementation. We are therefore disappointed to see that the document does not include a section relating to implementation and monitoring.

Object

Representation ID: 1434

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Critical to securing implementation in the context of a spatial approach to planning is the need to ensure the early commitment of key delivery agencies to implementation. This should be pursued in the establishment of the evidence base and is a key element in effective frontloading of DPD production.

Object

Representation ID: 1435

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

As the two authorities bring the document forward through the identification, testing and refinement of options and alternatives to the Submission stage, they will need to consider how best to engage with key delivery agencies in order to gain the necessary commitment to the implementation of the strategy, proposals and policies.

Object

Representation ID: 1436

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

As the document is progressed we would expect to see the implementation framework being developed further. In particular, the JAAP should include some commentary on the main dependencies in terms of delivery along with broad time tabling, together with any risks and contingencies as well as information being included in relation to each core policy. The monitoring section could then be expanded to include broad details on how delivery would be monitored against key output indicators and how any shortfall would be managed.

Comment

Representation ID: 1437

Received: 25/07/2008

Respondent: Go-East

Repeating National, Regional and Local Policy

We remind you of the requirement (e.g. see PPS12, paragraph 5.2) that policies should not repeat national planning policy statements but should explain how they apply to the local area, nor should they repeat policy set out in the East of England Plan.