London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.

A. Vision and Objectives

Essex County Council supports the Vision for the future development of London Southend Airport and its environs to realise its potential as a driver for the sub-regional economy. Also supported are the six objectives relating to creation of sustainable high value employment; maximising economic benefits; improving sustainable transport accessibility; high quality environment; attraction of inward investment; and efficient use of employment land.

Through its membership of Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership, the County Council has signed up to a series of priority actions contained within the TGSEP Economic Strategy published November 2007. The economic strategy identifies 5 spatial drivers for regeneration and growth, one of which is London Southend Airport. In order for South Essex to achieve jobs led regeneration and growth the economic strategy identifies specific actions for the Airport. The strategy suggests that the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) should support the expansion plans for the Airport and should include an economic component including demand analysis for a training centre to support the MRO activities at the airport and business retention activities as part of a package for inward investment. The high-tech engineering and manufacturing sector and in particular the successful cluster around the airport is important to the South Essex economy because of the number of highly skilled well-paid jobs (around 1,000) that it brings to the sub-region. It is recognised that the ongoing pressure that the sector faces requires well coordinated action to achieve business retention and growth. The Full Time Equivalent jobs that could be created with the growth of the Airport is also a key component for achieving sub-regional jobs targets. In addition, it is recognised that a fully functioning regional airport would service business travel requirements of the local business base and would have a catalytic affect on the image of Southend placing it on an international stage. Nevertheless, expansion of the Airport and the MRO activities should be accommodated with the minimum environmental and amenity impact.

Further from the perspective of the 2012 Olympics, and related and legacy activities, London Southend Airport offers opportunities for,

• use as a gateway to tourists based in Essex, not just as another airport near to London;
• having new routes operational in time for the 2012 Games (or even better for the test events in 2011) and having routes that would be popular for Games-time travellers;
• access for activity trips as a potential future market as identified in The Essex Tourism strategy. It is therefore important that Southend and the airline carriers are geared up to be able to handle sports equipment that may come with these tourists in a way that is customer friendly e.g. bikes, sailing equipment;
• getting routes that will maximise these potential tourism markets e.g. for cycling breaks, by, for instance targeting routes from the Holland/Belgium/France;
• Ensuring that the regulations associated with routes will allow flights by freight, passenger and VIP jets to give the ability to accommodate for the 2012 Olympics a range of flights that can include both VIP flights for the Games and freight journeys (particularly for sports equipment).

B. Future Development and Role of London Southend Airport
The Preferred Option for the future of the airport is supported, provided that the environmental implications of extending the runway to accommodate larger aircraft are fully addressed. The Option is based on the principles outlined in the Airport Masterplan 2005, but with the additional proposal of increasing the length of the runway to 1,799 metres (current runway 1,610 metres). The lengthening of the runway across Eastwoodbury Lane improves the capacity potential of the airport and its attractiveness to airline operators. It will enable aircraft with a seating capacity of 100-150 to be operated fully laden out of the airport. This would also allow use of the airport by the modern generation of medium sized aircraft which are quieter and more fuel efficient, with lower environmental impact. However, it can be expected that the Airport will continue to be used by existing aircraft and their continuing impact should be addressed.

A longer runway, with improved Airport facilities, would increase the operational capability of the Airport and facilitate its use by larger aircraft and increase the potential attraction of aviation companies (both passenger and MRO). Such improvements would accelerate the growth and range of passenger services and routes from the Airport. The availability of international air passenger services from the Airport would raise the profile of the Airport. As a result, it would stimulate the broader based economic development of the area which is being sought. Proposed extension of the employment area north of Aviation Way to accommodate a business park style development would broaden the range of premises and sites available to business in the area. The scale and nature of the proposals within the Preferred Option would also assist and support achievement of a range of transport and environmental improvements within the area.

Nevertheless, the first sentence of Policy LS6 (Runway Extension) is felt to be an inappropriate form of policy wording in advance of submission of a planning application for the runway extension. It is suggested that the first sentence of Policy LS6 which currently reads, 'Planning permission for the extension of the runway to the south so as to provide an operational runway of 1,799 metres will be supported.', should be amended by replacing the words 'will be supported' by the words 'is acceptable in principle'. This would better enable the joint authorities to consider a planning application on its merits without prejudice.

Also, Policy LS2 (Development at London Southend Airport) seeks to limit noise impact from development at the airport and makes reference to 'any accompanying Environmental Impact Assessment'. This approach is supported but the Policy should require the scope of any Environmental Impact Assessment to be broader. For instance, impacts (noise, traffic and air quality) on schools and pre-schools and residential areas should be identified and mitigated in full. The development of a noise contour limit (similar to that which operates at Stansted) as part of a future planning application is an essential pre-requisite to ensure noise issues are controlled.

C. Highways and Transportation
The Preferred Options propose various changes to the highway network, including new links (east - west, Eastwoodbury Lane to Nestuda Way) and junctions. The County Council, as Highway Authority, would have to be satisfied that the proposals could be accommodated on the network without having a detrimental impact on the existing situation and additionally would be able to accommodate future growth generated by the Preferred Options. This evidence should be provided through traffic assessments, modelling and design. Also, changes in development will require, where necessary, mitigation works to the network to accommodate increases in traffic flow. These may be those outlined in the consultation document and/or other measures deemed necessary by the Highway Authority following analysis of trip generation.

Policy T3 (Upgrade to Cherry Orchard Way) states, 'it is expected that the upgrade proposals will be incorporated in the Essex LTP'. It would be more appropriate to replace this phrase in Policy T3 with, 'Improved access to the proposed employment areas and the airport in order to accommodate planned future growth will be supported in the Essex LTP3'. LTP guidance expects local authorities to concentrate on challenges and issues rather than identifying specific infrastructure solutions, especially where funding for this is unclear. It is also probable that a scheme such as the one referred to in Policy T3 would be classified as major and therefore fall outside the LTP funding process.

Policy T6 (Green Travel Plans) should be expanded to include reference to promotion of sustainable transport, as well as managing the journeys of staff.

Policy T5 (Park and Ride) should be expanded to include a requirement for contributions from development for the establishment and running of the facility. This would be consistent with the approach of Policy T7 (Public Transport) and Policy T8 (Walking and Cycling) in seeking contributions from development.

D. Urban Design
Policy E5 (Development of Area 1A Saxon Business Park) makes specific reference to the inclusion of a landmark building and entrance feature. This is welcomed, as is the reference in Policy E8 to buildings delivering a visual presence to the A127. Bearing in mind that Area 1A, Area 1B and the MRO Northern Extension will each abut the new Green Belt boundary similar consideration should be given to the design of buildings and treatment of these important development edges. It is suggested that Policy E5, Policy E6 and Policy MRO2 could each incorporate the phrase 'The design and layout of development where it abuts the Green Belt will need to be carefully considered in order to achieve an appropriate edge to the urban area'.

E. Historic Environment
The Preferred Options make no mention of cultural heritage/historic environment issues and impacts and this should be addressed.

The Rochford Historic Environment Characteristion (HEC) document commissioned by Rochford District Council provides an overall assessment of the District's historic environment including the study area for the JAAP and its relevance should be highlighted at this stage. The HEC document was produced in order to provide an overview of the historic environment for the LDF process and particularly to be used at an early stage for identifying the possible choice of development sites, the impact of potential development and an informed approach to conservation, enhancement and mitigation. Within the Rochford HEC the relevant Historic Environment Character Zones (HECZ) are 17, 18 and 22. The scoring table provided in the report and GIS project for each zone provides an assessment of seven specific criteria, diversity, survival, documentation, potential, group value association, sensitivity to change and amenity value.

The area outlined within the Preferred Options document is one which although partially disturbed through construction of the airport, golf course, quarrying and modern industrial buildings retains a significant archaeological and more general historic environment potential. In addition to specific known sites such as the medieval church of St. Lawrence and All Saints and a post-medieval brickworks and associated housing along Cherry Orchard Way, there are further finds, particularly in the west of the site which indicate prehistoric activity, evidence of which is likely to survive. The airfield was established by the RFC during WWI and was later requisitioned to become RAF Rochford, part of Fighter Command during WWII. The airfield was heavily defended and the study area contains a large number of extant features relating to the security of the airfield. It is important that the cultural heritage potential of the study area is taken into account at this early stage in order to ensure that opportunities for pro-active management and enhancement of the historic environment are considered at all stages of the development plan.

The JAAP should also address the mitigation of noise/smell impacts from the Airport on properties in the surrounding area. Many of the properties that would be affected are listed buildings which are unable to accommodate improvements, such as double glazing.

The comments of the County Council given as response to the previous consultation on the Issues and Options document remain relevant and should be considered alongside the above comments.

F. Minerals and Waste
It should be noted that there is an outstanding planning condition attached to Cherry Orchard Brickworks under the IDO consent. This would need to be addressed through the plan process.

G. Conclusions

In conclusion,

• Development of London Southend Airport, including the proposed runway extension, together with the proposed additional employment areas within and adjacent to the airport, is supported;

• Changes to the highway network and other transport initiatives should be considered jointly by the highway authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Essex to ensure that they positively assist both the development proposals of the Plan and existing movements in the area;

• The opportunity should be taken to achieve high quality design of the proposed development areas, incorporating available features from the historic environment, to give the area a clear and unique identity.

• The environment and amenity of people living around the Airport should be protected.