London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

This policy includes reference to SERT, which is now the subject of a public consultation. LSACL has a number of comments about the proposed routes which could be designed to serve the expanded airport and new employment areas, and will be making these comments to the SERT promoters.

LSACL fully supports the Vision as set out in section 2.1 and the Objectives in 2.2. In particular, we agree with the recognition that the Airport is already a major employment location with significant spare capacity for flights and that its regeneration will enable it to reach its potential to function as a local regional airport. We agree with the description of the Airport in 2021, especially that there will be quiet, fuel efficient aircraft and good transport access, providing benefits to the local community in terms of both employment and travel opportunities.

It is proposed to extend the runway such that the maximum declared distance is 1799 metres which is sufficient to ensure that modern, fuel-efficient medium sized aircraft such as the Airbus A319 and the Embraer E195 can operate with commercial payloads. Airports are categorised by runway length and a declared distance of less than 1800 metres is categorised as Code 3. To have a declared distance of 1800 metres or longer would move the airport into the next category, which would then require very different geometric requirements such as separation distances and gradients.

London Southend Airport Company Ltd agrees with the description of Issue 2.

A detailed report has been commissioned from Bickerdike Allen and Partners and will be submitted in support of a planning application for the runway extension. Preliminary results including the noise contour predictions will be supplied separately to the Councils as soon as they are available. However, the key results are as follows:
• With or without a runway extension there are unlikely to be any houses exposed to noise levels in excess of 69 dB, normally the level for property purchase schemes.
• With the runway extension, there are likely to be around 40 households within the 63 dB contour, which is normally the basis of a sound insulation grant scheme.
• With a runway extension and 2 million passengers in 2020, the 57 dB contour (classified as 'the onset of community annoyance') would cover 3.2 km2. This compares with the actual 2007 contour which covers 2.0 km2.
• With the existing runway and 0.7 million passengers in 2020, the 57 dB contour would cover 1.3 km2.
• In 1967, the 57 dB contour would have covered over 20 km2.
• In terms of specific locations, there would be almost no change in noise levels at the north eastern end of the runway compared with 2007. Close to the south western end of the extended runway noise levels could increase by around 3dB, which the Government defines as discernable but of marginal significance. Elsewhere the change would be less than 2dB which would not be discernable to most people.
• The noise footprints of individual aircraft depend on the length of the runway. With the runway extension, the Airbus A319 can operate with a full payload and has a noise footprint of 2.6 km2. Without the runway extension, the RJ85 would be the largest aircraft that could operate with a full payload and would have a noise footprint of 3.2 km2.
In our response on the proposed conditions (Policy LS7) we have confirmed that we would be willing to discuss various conditions which would mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on the community.

London Southend Airport agress with the description of Issue 4

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.

London Southend Airport Company Ltd supports this proposed policy.