London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

Area iii is described as land adjacent to the airport boundary, but some of the land shown purple on the diagram is already within the airport boundary, and the remainder has now been leased to LSACL. While the western boundary of this area is naturally defined, the eastern boundary as shown on the diagram follows the line of an existing airside road. Our response to the Issues & Options consultation was that the boundary of this area should be the edge of the runway strip (150 metres from the runway centreline), as development may take place up to this line (albeit with height restrictions), as shown on the Block Land Use Plan of the Airport Master Plan. LSACL supports the Preferred Option for this area.

A small area at the north west corner of Area v is required to be included in the airport as part of the clear area associated with the runway extension. This includes the cottages located on the bend of Eastwoodbury Lane. It is suggested that this corner could be included in area x.

Also as noted in our comments on the I&O consultation, Area vi should go the edge of the runway strip.

Area vii is described as the Flying Club strip for which the preferred option is the location for the new terminal and railway station. This is supported, but it should be recognised that development of the terminal and rail station will require a much greater area than just area vii, as shown in the Airport Master Plan.

Similarly, the Southern Maintenance Zone could see development to the north of Area viii shown on the diagram.

Part of Area ix is shown in the Airport Master Plan as being part of the Passenger Terminal and Apron Zone and, as you are aware, LSACL has drawn up plans for this to be used as part of the multimodal transport interchange associated with the new terminal and rail station. The Preferred Option is to retain this area in the Green Belt as a green buffer between the Airport and residential properties to the east. However, the rail station, for which planning permission has been granted by Rochford District Council, includes an entrance on the eastern side which was intended to allow rail passengers from the residential areas and from the bus services on Southend Road to access the station. The interchange plan also includes car parking for the station so that rail passengers do not fly park in the adjacent residential area, which we understand to be a greater concern than any visual impact of the Airport. The Airport wishes to work with Rochford District Council to ensure that such fly parking does not occur, but the lack of a station car park will make this very difficult. The objective of achieving a buffer can be achieved by good landscaping within the design of this area.

As with policy E3, this should note Policy T6 as well as T7 and T8.

In the Introduction to this policy section, second paragraph, there is a risk of confusion about the term 'Fixed Base Operator (FBO)'. This was mentioned in our response to the I&O report. FBOs are usually related to business or general aviation operations it would be better to refer to two or three airlines which would base aircraft at the airport.

There are a number of places where the airport boundary as shown on the proposals map is inaccurate, as follows:
• North of Eastwoodbury Lane and west of the Avro Centre, the boundary should be further east to allow the full cleared area plus a fence, as shown in the Airport Master Plan.
• Around St Lawrence Church and the properties just south of Eastwoodbury Lane, the boundary should follow existing property boundaries. This is especially important as LSACL does not want to indicate that it will be necessary to acquire any of the Church.
• The boundary should go around the outside of the Northside MRO area
• LSACL leases the area to the east of the new rail station and, although it is appreciated that the Preferred Option is to retain this as a green buffer, it should still be shown as within the airport boundary.
In addition, the location of the new terminal should be further west than is shown on the Proposals Map, and would probably be clearer if it was designated as a text box. It is suggested that the purple line designating Railway Station & Car Park should be deleted, as these faculties are already noted on the Map.

The Airport agrees that the runway extension should be supported by conditions to minimise the impact of the development and is willing to discuss these and agree them with the Councils. In particular, the conditions should include ways of restricting operations between 2300 and 0630 hours (0700 on Sundays) recognising that the current lease permits over 900 movements per month between Midnight and 0600 and that the last arrival of the day by a based operator may be after 2300 hours. Among the restrictions to be discussed could be a ban on all but the quietest aircraft at night (this could be done by reference to the QC (Quota Count) system which is used at a number of UK airports to control night noise) plus a dramatic reduction in the permitted number of night movements. In addition a limit on cargo tonnage could be considered. Details should also be agreed on aircraft arrival and departure routes, the operation of helicopters, engine testing and training movements.

It is not appropriate to have a condition about aircraft operations in the air attached to a terminal permission and, in any event, this proposed policy duplicates LS7 and therefore could be deleted.

This policy should have more flexibility in the wording of the use, to enable airport related developments, such as the relocated control tower, the fuel farm and other ancillary uses, which might not be purely MRO to take place. In addition, this policy should include a reference to aviation training facilities.

This policy should have more flexibility in the wording of the use, to enable airport related developments, such as the relocated control tower, the fuel farm and other ancillary uses, which might not be purely MRO to take place. In addition, this policy should include a reference to aviation training facilities.

This policy should have more flexibility in the wording of the use, to enable airport related developments, such as the relocated control tower, the fuel farm and other ancillary uses, which might not be purely MRO to take place, and include a reference to aviation training facilities.
A particular concern about boundaries is illustrated by this policy, which suggests that developments will be supported in the area shown as the Southern MRO Zone on the Proposals Map. It should be clear that developments may take place in a much larger area than just as on the Proposals Map.

This policy should include a reference to the need to provide a route to replace the existing footpath within the airport boundary which crosses the taxiway in the Northern MRO Zone, causing a security and safety risk. Opportunities exist to provide new footpaths along the east-west section of Aviation Way as part of an access improvements package for people working in the new employment areas, and for new leisure footpaths from the Cherry Orchard County Park to the relocated rugby club and the public open space to the north of the new employment areas.

As noted under our comments above about Area ix, this policy can be achieved in addition to using area ix as part of the multimodal transport interchange, possibly including SERT. The policy therefore needs to be amended to note that this area should be designed to accommodate transport and access facilities to serve the already approved station layout and to prevent fly parking in adjacent residential areas, as well as significant landscaping to provide a buffer between the Airport and the residential area.