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

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.

* Questionnaire Timing - We believe that it is good that you are consulting local interested parties but do not believe that a website questionnaire is the best and fairest way to do it. The document is too large and there are too many questions to answer. The response to your questionnaire is expected by the 8 Aug 2008, as many organisations only meet once a month this would make it almost impossible for them to respond. The whole process seems to be driven by a very fast timetable, which does not seem to give much time for objections to be lodged.

* Future Growth - Does the planned expansion take into account the latest cost of fuel that we believe will greatly affect travel in the near future?

* Green Belt - We believe moderate improvements to the airport and surrounding light industrial estate are necessary for the area but all of the proposed options seem to include loss of greenbelt land. Once again land is being chipped away to suit a particular development. We are strongly against the use of green belt or farm land for any future development but any improvement to amenities and lessening of the impact to the environment has to be welcomed.

* Night Flights - No mention is made of night flights that we would object to, given that the proposed 2 million passengers per year would almost certainly need a 24/7-flight pattern. In addition the pollution created by the aircraft and traffic increase needs to be quantified. We believe there are limited night flights at the moment, if flights are increased all night flights should be eliminated completely.

* Socially & Environmental - We can see the need for economic improvements and we are all for local transport improvements but it is not clear what you have in mind to improve the area socially and environmentally as mentioned in the report. The proposed use of Prittlewell & Eastwood brook to dispose of surface water, what are the appropriate measures mentioned in the report to overcome pollution? This may in addition also create a flooding problem as we believe no volume tests have been carried out.

* Local Employment - Any increase in local employment can only be good but not by using green belt or farm land. We believe you should aim for low scale employment growth. It seems to us all options are driven by more jobs. The people who live in this area moved here because of its rural nature. If they had wished to live by a major airport they would have all moved to Stansted! We believe a new hotel can only be good for the area but we are not sure a new rail station is necessary when the one a Rochford is only a mile away. This would only slow down the train service that would need to make an additional stop.

. Roads & Infrastructure - The local roads could not support the numbers of people travelling to the airport via the current system as there are existing problems. We believe the airport is beneficial to the area but do not believe that we will get the road improvement that would be required for a larger expansion. Even if money was available for major road improvements there is no room for additional roads. The only way to really improve the A127 is to build a bypass. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be nice. We cannot see why a shuttle bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass as works at Heathrow.

* Noise Pollution - Additional noise has got to be a major consideration that may be eased by the use of quieter planes but what level of noise pollution is to be expected? This includes more cars, delivery lorries, coaches/buses, aircraft and increased train activity.

* Railway Safety - The existing railway line is in close proximity to the runway. If a plane came in short of the runway, as one did recently at Heathrow, the high voltage would make the accident ten times worse. If a train were present at this point it would be a major disaster.



To summarise we believe the only real way to ensure a high quality environment for residents is to limit the number of flights and consequently the size of the airport. The airports objective should be to keep it simple and not aim too high. In our opinion this location is not the suitable for a major airport but some increase in capacity could be beneficial. We therefore conclude that the airport should only be used for and have a modest increase in light industry, plane maintenance, business flights, cargo and limited UK and European holiday flights.