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

LSACL has a number of comments on the published Evidence report. Most of these are minor corrections which would not affect the soundness of the evidence and will be submitted separately. However, the following should be addressed to ensure that the evidence is to be sound:
. The Airport is described and shown on the plans (eg the purple line on Figure 1-1) as being the original 1994 leased area. However, there are significant additional areas which are now part of the Airport, some of which are currently used for operational activities, in particular the area to the south west of the runway between Eastwoodbury Lane and Nestuda Way, which is used for the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) and Instrument Landing System (ILS) Localiser Aerial and its associated restricted area. There are three other areas which should be added, east of the end of Aviation Way, south of the Runway 06 threshold and east of the railway
. Section 3.2 of the Evidence report could note that the existing runway limits all types of aircraft operations, not just commercial services
. A number of corrections are needed to Chapter 4 of the Evidence report on transport
. Chapter 6 of the Evidence report could note the differences in the scale of economic activity between Rochford and Southend, not just the respective rates.
. Chapter 7 of the Evidence report could note the specific skills of the aviation related business cluster at Southend Airport.
. In describing the scenarios in Chapter 11 of the Evidence report, it should be noted that with Scenarios 1, 2(a) and 2(b) there is a risk that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) will require an increase in the length of the RESA at the north east end of the runway which would result in a shortening of the usable runway length and therefore a further limitation on the size and types of aircraft which could operate.
. The Evidence Base could be significantly enhanced by reference to additional transport policies and strategies and by further appraisal of transport issues.

LSACL has a number of comments on the published Sustainability Appraisal and the associated Scoping report. Most of these are minor corrections which would not affect the soundness of the evidence and will be submitted separately. Some of the points are the same as for the Evidence Base report and are not repeated here. However, the following additional points should be addressed to ensure that the evidence is sound:
. The Scoping report should mention the Future of Air Transport White paper of 2003 when reviewing national policies.
. The Sustainability Appraisal scores Scenarios 2(b) and 3 differently on airport related environmental objectives, yet the two scenarios are noted as relating to the same level of passenger throughput
. The Sustainability Appraisal could take account of improvements which would come from conditions or section 106 agreements in the higher growth options, which would not be possible with low growth.
. Although one of the objectives is safety, none of the scenarios is scored in terms of aviation safety. In order to achieve the required safety standards, each of the scenarios is likely to have an effect on the runway configuration. Thus, Scenarios 1 and 2(a) risk having to shorten the runway to provide the required RESA at the north east end. Scenario 2(b) could, in addition, require the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. Scenario 3 enables a number of improvements to take place such that a positive result can be achieved in safety.
. The Sustainability Appraisal scores employment and wealth creation on the basis of no action being taken to match skills to jobs, whereas the whole point of the JAAP is to do just that.

This section refers to the Rochford Core Strategy which is still at an early stage and has not been adopted.

The 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper gave specific support for Southend Airport, as follows: paragraph 11.99 support for development and 11.101 support for a role to serve business aviation. The White Paper Progress Report published in December 2006 also notes the progress made in establishing Southend Airport as a centre of engineering excellence for aircraft maintenance.

The third paragraph should also refer to the East of England Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy references to employment growth and Green Belt reviews.

An independent opinion poll conducted in July 2008 on behalf of the Airport showed that:
. 86% said they would support the development of Southend Airport as a fully functioning regional airport with flights to popular holiday destinations
. 90% said Southend Airport did not have any impact on their day-to-day lives now. The main concerns of those who are affected said that their concerns are about road traffic and aircraft noise.

The third paragraph refers to airport runways (plural) whereas this should be singular. More importantly, the third paragraph could note (with reference to Figure 2.6) that the current Green Belt boundary is arbitrary in that it runs across the airport and across the runway, not following natural features or developed areas.

The purple line on Figure 2.1 is not keyed, but appears to indicate the Airport boundary. It would be better if the boundary included the RESA/ILS area to the south west, the 4 acre field close to the south west end of the runway, the 10 acre field adjacent to the northern maintenance area and the area to the east of the railway, all of which are leased to or owned by the Airport

The first paragraph beneath Figure 2.1 should refer to the Southend - London main line railway as the Great Eastern Main Line. This is the name used by Network Rail and the DfT and avoids confusion with the London - Southend - Shoeburyness Line.

The description of the southern portion of the study area in the penultimate paragraph could make it clear that the employment area off Nestuda Way contains offices, retail and a hotel/restaurant.

The third paragraph gives 2006 data which can now be updated to 2007, when there were 40,000 aircraft movements and 49,000 passengers.

There could be a reference to the Airport Master Plan and its status as a non statutory document prepared in accordance with Government guidance following the White Paper which is to be taken account of in LDF processes.

Figure 2.2 is similar to the Airport Master Plan Block Land Use Plan, but there are a few differences. As with Figure 2.1, the airport boundary does not include the 4 acre and 10 acre fields, although it does include the RESA/ILS area and the land east of the railway. All of these areas are designated for airport use in the Master Plan. The Key should show that the yellow area is RESA and ILS and should be designated in the pink colour the same as the runway. It is not clear what the 'bund' is in the key. Finally, the southern MRO area should extend into the whole of the white area to its north, and should not be titled terminal and apron, the latter being to the east in the blue area The Block Land Use Plan from the Airport Master Plan will be submitted separately.

The second bullet point on pedestrian facilities should note that one of the footpaths shown on Figure 2.4 crosses a taxiway and controlled airside area and is a safety and security risk. Efforts are being made to divert this little used route.

Figure 2.4 shows a potential Park 'n' Ride site. Although this scheme has been referred to in other plans (LTP2, RSL's Regeneration Framework, SSBC Core Strategy) further information is required on its purpose and how it would work and, in particular, whether it has any relationship to parking at the Airport.

In the printed version of the document, this section contains two pictures of St Laurence Church but no description of it. Given the concerns that the community may have about the impact of the Airport on it, it should be described, so that assurances can be given that it will not be moved. An appropriate description could be taken from the listing.

In Figure 2.5 Cherry Orchard Lane should be labelled Cherry Orchard Way

In Figure 2.6 the Southern Maintenance and Support Area and the Existing Terminal Area are not designated as employment areas, whereas the Northern Maintenance Area is. The Airport boundary is shown on the key but not on the plan. Cherry Orchard Lane should be labelled Cherry Orchard Way

As noted in our comments on each section of this chapter, the following issues could be better reported:
. There is only one runway at the Airport
. The Green Belt boundary is arbitrary and does not relate to natural features
. The figures should show that the Airport includes a number of additional areas
. The rail line should be correctly titled
. The employment area off Nestuda Way should be more fully described
. 2007 data is now available for passengers and aircraft movements
. There should be a reference to the Airport Master Plan having been prepared under Government guidance which requires it to be taken into account in the LDF process, and Figure 2.2 should reflect it.
. An existing footpath across an airside area should be noted as a safety and security risk
. The purpose and method of operation of the Park 'n Ride should be described
. St Laurence and All Saints Church should be noted
. Cherry Orchard Lane and Cherry Orchard Way should be correctly titled
. Figure 2.6 should include key airport employment areas