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

In Issue 1 under the heading Airport model and infrastructure, the reference to Boeing 737 aircraft may be confusing as some models of these could not operate from a 1799 metre runway with an economic load. It would be better to refer to aircraft of between 100 and 149 seats, such as the Airbus A319 and the Embraer 195.

The reference to fixed base operators may also confuse as this is usually used for business and general aviation. It would be better to refer to airlines would base aircraft at the Airport.

The second sentence of the paragraph beginning 'Runway' should be replaced by 'The benefit of this extension would be that aircraft could operate with economic loads on longer range routes, for example to southern Europe'.

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.

The Arup study referred to in our response to 5.2 forecasts a total of 2,870 jobs in 2020, a net increase of 1,700 rather than the 1,180 mentioned under the heading Direct airport employment. The present value of the economic benefits between now and 2030 would be £763 million, over £500 more than the other scenarios.

The figures of 1500 arrivals and 1500 departures noted under the heading Aircraft and passenger forecasts relate to an annual figure of 1 mppa, not 2 mppa.

In Issue 2 it is suggested that there would be 3,900 jobs in the new employment areas. As noted above, a substantial proportion of these would be aviation-related, attracted to sites adjacent to an airport where there is a reasonable selection of air services available, as would be the case in this scenario.

In Issue 3 a strategic revision of the Green Belt boundary is discussed but Figure 5.5 shows the arbitrary boundary across the runway remaining.

In Issue 4 under the Improvements heading, the need for improvements to public transport, cycling or walking should be noted as well as to the roads and that the opportunities for such improvements will be much greater with the higher levels of development.

Scenario 3 is the only credible scenario which could achieve long term economic sustainability for the Airport and therefore meet the economic objectives and provide the robust revenues to offset any downturns and safeguard the existing 1200 jobs at the aiport. In summary the reasons for this are as follows:
• Airlines could use modern fuel efficient aircraft with economic loads on a range of business and leisure flights to serve the local population and businesses
• The risk of further regulatory limitations is avoided and safety enhanced
• There would be opportunities for excellent transport and environmental enhancements
• Airport-related jobs would form the core of the employment growth
• St Laurence and All Saints Church would not be moved
• The Green Belt boundary can be defensible and fixed to a natural feature

By the recognition of the full development potential of land within the existing airport boundary, as set out in our response to Q 4.13

By an understanding of the transport needs of the proposed development and by an indication of the potential for the provision of public transport, cycling, walking and travel planning measures.

By noting the opportunities for mitigating any adverse environmental impacts.

By the appropriate redrawing of the Green Belt boundary outside the Airport and the development areas.

By noting the likely sequencing of the developments.

By a reconsideration of the use of area ii(c) to ensure that its ecological value is retained within the development areas.

By noting the potential of parts of area ix for local access to the new airport station and as a green buffer between the airport/railway and the local residential area to the east.