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

The Board of RHGC have studied the JAAP Issues and Options Report in detail, and two members of the Board attended the joint breakfast briefing on the Report led by representatives of Rochford District Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council on 10 July 2008.

As the Report sets out, any option for future development of London Southend Airport and Environs has to weigh potential economic, employment, transport and infrastructure benefits against environmental considerations and disbenefits such as increased noise, vibration, harmful emissions and congestion; negative impacts on landscape character and visual amenity; and, the impact of large scale development on the market town nature of Rochford.

The Board note that under Scenario Three there would be a strategic revision of the Green Belt with the RHGC being the boundary of a strategic "green lung" between the communities of Rochford and greater Southend. We are concerned that this would turn what started life in 1896 as a rural golf course, which has more recently co existed in relative harmony with the Airport as a semi rural one, into an urban golf course abutting a busy airport and sizable industrial and commercial estates. In our view this would severely impact, in a negative way, on the attractiveness of the golf course as a recreational amenity for both our members and the wider community in Rochford, such as those who use the footpaths across the course for rambling. This negative impact would be compounded by increased noise, vibration and harmful emissions from increased traffic and especially from large aircraft landing and taking off throughout the day.

As a golf club we take our environmental responsibilities very seriously, and in fact have recently established additional wildlife habitats within the confines of the course. The quality of the environment for the wildlife that these will attract, and indeed the concept of our course being part of a 'green lung' between Rochford and Greater Southend, is placed at risk by these negative factors.

In addition to the above which would impact mainly on current (some 800) and future members of our Club, we believe there are a range of challenges to the stated JAAP which would have broader impacts on a wider range of stakeholders to the proposed scheme and which need be addressed seriously. The Board is concerned that the outcome of adopting Scenario Three as a long term objective could in fact end up being only partially realised resulting in a 'hybrid' outcome of growth beyond that envisaged in Scenario Two (a) but without the compensating infrastructure improvements. We believe that such an outcome could be considered likely for two reasons. Firstly, the Board note the important role played in the proposed scheme by extensive use of rail travel by passengers to and from the significantly enlarged airport. Notwithstanding the challenges that could be levied at this assumption based upon a significant proportion of passengers' wishes to use car transport rather than rail, we contend that any substantial expansion of rail passenger numbers is currently constrained by existing congestion between Shenfield and Liverpool Street as well as by the tendency for successive rail operating companies and infrastructure providers to regard the line from Southend to Shenfield as having 'branch line' status. This has the practical effect of relegating traffic on that line to a secondary priority behind that on the main Norwich â€" London line, should there be any disruption either between Shenfield and Liverpool Street or on the main line itself. We also note that any easing of this situation which might be provided by the Crossrail project will not be realised before 2017 at the earliest â€" far too late to offset any additional congestion on the network caused by the 2012 Olympic and Para-Olympic Games. These concerns cause the Board to question the effectiveness of a strategy based on the upgrading of the local railway infrastructure as a way of minimising additional congestion on already congested roads in and around the JAAP area.

In addition, given the current economic climate, the Board are concerned that neither public nor private investment funding will be available to significantly improve the road infrastructure to the extent envisaged in Scenario Three. The area in and around Southend-on-Sea is already blighted by substantial traffic congestion, which worsens each year alongside more general increase in population and the building of new homes. The already existing and worsening traffic congestion issues can also be seen as a substantial, probable negative factor to any business wishing to establish a business premises in the planned commercial and industrial estates that are an integral part of the airport development. We also note that the rail infrastructure is actually not adjacent to the proposed industrial and commercial expansion associated with the airport, which would surely mean a further increase in road traffic arising from car journeys to and from work by employees in these areas. These factors could well mean a substantial downward impact on the supposed benefits that would accrue to the town in terms of additional local employment, and rather than an improvement, could well lead to a worsening of the quality of life in and around Southend for the vast majority of stakeholders.

Secondly, the Board are concerned over recent reports in the media that previous forecasts of the increase in demand for short haul flights are currently being revised downwards by some airport operators and airlines. This again leads us to fear that although there is planned expansion of industrial and commercial development on the JAAP site which might be desirable, this would not be realised because of the lack of availability of funding for sufficient infrastructure improvements. This would mean that the scheme would not be likely to be 'balanced' or to deliver the desired benefits to the town.

Given our concerns outlined above, the Board are of the view that Scenario One:
- Is more realistic in terms of the likely planned and sustainable passenger growth at the airport and its impact on congestion in an already crowded corner of the country, and
- Provides the best and most 'risk-free' balance between economic and employment growth and the preservation of both the environment and semi rural nature of both the golf course and the historic market town of Rochford itself.