London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

Object

Representation ID: 11551

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

Planning permission should not be granted, but conditions should be imposed regardless. However, the conditions specified are wholly inadequate. The night restriction should apply to *all* flights, not just scheduled passenger flights. A noise quota is not satisfactory in itself - a limit on the actual number of flights should also be enforced. Any breaches of conditions should result in a meaningful penalty being imposed on the airport operator. Monetary fines are not sufficient, as they would not benefit residents. A suspension of all flights for a 24-hour period following each breach of conditions would be more appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 11557

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

Another case of the councils unacceptably declaring their position on an unsubmitted planning permission. My objections to Policy LS7 also apply here. Nigel Holdcroft has acknowledged that were there not currently an airport at this location, SBC would not support the development of one as it would be inappropriate. They should therefore not support the expansion of the existing airport as it is equally inappropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 11558

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

The continued operation of the MRO would be acceptable provided that the focus is on activities that do not involve the testing of engines, which is very noisy and disruptive to local residents - indeed, I have heard engine tests from the southern part of Priory Crescent when walking my dog and the noise has been sufficient to worry him to the extent that I dare not let him off the lead for fear that he would run away. Such activities should not take place in densely populated areas such as Southend.

Object

Representation ID: 11563

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

Further pre-judgement of planning applications in this policy. The MRO should not expand into this green open space.

Object

Representation ID: 11570

Received: 12/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

I object on the grounds that this policy provides further support for planning applications that have not been submitted. However, this is an appropriate place for MRO activity, provided that the close proximity of residential properties is taken into consideration and consequently, noise from these operations is minimised and strictly controlled.

Object

Representation ID: 12123

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

It is completely inappropriate for Southend Airport to expand to 2mppa and therefore, this policy is simply wrong.

Object

Representation ID: 12124

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

Conversely, with no runway extension, a new link road would not be necessary. Therefore, were the runway extension to go ahead, all costs for this link road must be met by the airport operator.

Object

Representation ID: 12127

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

It has long been established that more roads result in more cars using them and therefore more congestion. This is why this policy should not be adopted and attention should instead be focused on policies T5-T9 coupled with other traffic reduction methods, such as congestion charging on the A127 and A13 at peak hours with the alternative of a free park and ride scheme at the point of charging paid for by the congestion charge.

Object

Representation ID: 12129

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

As discussed in our objection to policy T2, road widening is not a solution.

Object

Representation ID: 12130

Received: 14/05/2009

Respondent: South East Essex Friends of the Earth

See objection to Policy T2.