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

In all the figures in this section, the Airport boundary should include the additional leased and owned areas as noted above in Section 2.1.

LSACL commissioned Arup to undertake an economic impact assessment of the Airport and their report will be submitted separately. Their report suggests that, without the growth of passenger services, the net increase in airport-related jobs (including indirect and induced) would be 330 by 2020. The figure of 750 additional jobs could only be achieved if non aviation jobs are attracted by the availability of space rather than by a demand for the particular airport location. The risk with the Low Growth Scenario is that as the number of aircraft and European airlines that can use Southend's existing short runway for commercial services declines, so too do the commercial opportunities for the airport. The risk of business failure for either airport based companies or even the airport increases commensurately, and consideration would need to be given to the 1200 airport based jobs that depend on these companies.

In Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, it could be noted that the Airport would be vulnerable to an inability to maintain its infrastructure in the face of increasing safety and security requirements. There is also a risk that the CAA will require an extension to the RESA at the north east end which would reduce the runway length even further, impacting on the Airport's MRO capability.

In Issue 3, under Green Belt, the boundary across the Airport would remain arbitrary and unrelated to natural features or existing development.

In Issue 4 under the heading Improvements, there is a need for improvements to public transport, cycling or walking for existing employment areas. However, with Scenario 1, there would be very limited opportunities for such improvements.

Figure 5.2 shows a Park & Ride location but more information is required on its purpose and method of operation.

With this scenario, the business and regulatory risks remain. As the number of aircraft and European airlines that can use such a short runway for commercial services declines, so too do the commercial opportunities for the airport. The risk of business failure for either airport based companies or even the airport increases commensurately and consideration would need to be given to the 1200 airport based jobs that depend on these companies.

As with Scenario 1, in Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, it could be noted that the Airport would also still be vulnerable to an inability to maintain its infrastructure in the face of increasing safety and security requirements. There is also a risk that the CAA will require an extension to the RESA at the north east end which would reduce the runway length even further, impacting on the Airport's MRO capability

As noted in our comment on 5.2, the Arup forecast is for 330 net airport related jobs. In Issue 2, Future employment role, it is suggested that 3,200 new jobs could be accommodated. This would therefore imply that the vast majority of new jobs would not be airport-related, attracted by the availability of space rather than by a demand for the particular airport location.

In Issue 3, under Green Belt, the boundary would have to be revised to go around the new business park area and the old brickworks site, unless these are developed within the Green Belt. Across the Airport, the boundary would remain arbitrary and unrelated to natural features or existing development.

In Issue 4 under the heading Improvements, there is a need for improvements to public transport, cycling or walking for existing employment areas. However, as with Scenario 1, there would be very limited opportunities for such improvements.

This scenario is assessed as having a high strategic fit with the objective of ensuring a high quality environment for residents. However, as with Scenario 1, there are few opportunities to provide enhancements and this would suggest only a medium strategic fit against this objective.

Passenger growth to 2 mppa by 2030 is very uncertain in this scenario. While the provision of a new rail station, hotel and terminal might attract some new air services, the existing runway length will prevent airlines from fully utilising their aircraft (especially new efficient types) and make growth very fragile. As with Scenarios 1 and 2(a), as the number of aircraft and European airlines that can use such a short runway for commercial services declines, so too do the commercial opportunities for the airport. The risk of business failure for either airport based companies or even the airport increases commensurately and consideration would need to be given to the 1200 airport based jobs that depend on these companies.

The title 'Aviation Cluster' may be misleading as it implies a significant difference in aviation related activity compared with Scenario 2(a) whereas most of the additional employment would come from non aviation related activity. It would be better titled 'Medium growth â€" new business park'.

The Arup study mentioned at 5.2 above noted that the existing runway is at the margin of regional carriers' operations and that, as they are changing their fleets to more efficient aircraft types, longer runways are required for these aircraft to operate at their full range with an economic loading. This trend of aircraft fleet replacement is even more important as fuel costs rise.

The key to Figure 5.3 shows areas iii and x as 'Airport Boundary Extension'. Part of iii and all of x are already Airport leased areas and x is an existing RESA/ILS area.

Figure 5.3 shows a Park & Ride location but further information is needed on its purpose and method of operation.

As with Scenarios 1 and 2 (a), in Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, it should be noted that the Airport would be vulnerable to both the economic and business risks outlined in previous paragraphs and the consequent decline in economic sustainability could lead to an inability to maintain its infrastructure in the face of increasing safety and security requirements. There is also a risk that the CAA will require an extension to the RESA at the north east end which would reduce the runway length even further, impacting on the Airport's MRO capability.

In the description of the New Railway Station there are references to the Strategic Rail Authority and One Great Eastern, which should be replaced by the Department for Transport and National Express East Anglia respectively.

It is LSACL's view that growth to 1 mppa by 2012 and to 2 mppa by 2030 is very uncertain in this scenario. In the study referred to in our comment on 5.2, Arup conclude that only limited spoke services on smaller aircraft would be attracted with the existing runway. These services would contribute little to the local economy and Arup's forecast is for a net increase in airport related jobs of just 330 in 2020. The present value of the economic benefits from the Airport between now and 2030 would be over £500 less than Scenario 3.

In Issue 2, Future employment role, it is suggested that 3,200 new jobs could be accommodated. This would therefore imply that the vast majority of new jobs would not be airport-related, attracted by the availability of space rather than by a demand for the particular airport location.

The Arup study used the Government's strategic forecasting model with parameters reflecting the type of aircraft likely to use the existing runway. This indicated that 2mppa would be a very optimistic forecast and would probably not be achievable.

The figures of 1500 arrivals and 1500 departures relate to an annual figure of 1 mppa, not 2 mppa.

In Issue 3 under Green Belt, the note says that the boundary would be taken around the airport boundary, but this is not shown on Figure 5.3. There would be very limited opportunities for mitigation of the adverse impacts of the airport without any significant growth.

In Issue 4, LSACL confirms that closure of the existing alignment would be necessary under this scenario. There is a greater need for improvements compared with Scenarios 1 and 2(a) but the proposals do not refer to public transport, cycling or walking.

In assessing the strategic fit against the objective of maximising the economic benefits of a thriving airport and related activity, the low probability of achieving the passenger forecasts and the limited number of airport-related jobs would suggest that this could be only a low strategic fit.

On the other hand, when assessing this scenario against the objective of ensuring appropriate improvements in sustainable transport accessibility and facilities, there would need to be much greater provision of public transport, cycling, walking or travel planning to the increased employment areas to achieve a high strategic fit.

Although this scenario is titled High Growth, it could also be titled Re-launch of Airline Services from Southend Airport, to indicate that it is the only scenario which would credibly enable such services to be operated.

Although the runway take off distance would be extended to 1799 metres, this scenario would also meet the recommendation by the CAA to achieve the extension of the Runway End Safety Area (RESA) at the north east end of the runway, thereby further enhancing safety standards.

Figure 5.4 still shows the Green Belt boundary arbitrarily across the Airport, even though the text speaks of a strategic revision of the boundary.

The key to Figure 5.4 shows areas iii and x as 'Airport Boundary Extension'. Part of iii and all of x are already Airport leased areas and x is an existing RESA/ILS area.

Figure 5.4 shows a Park & Ride location but more information is needed as to its purpose and method of operation.