London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

• I strongly object to the plan for the development of the airport (existing plan). The economic benefits for the area are greatly outweighed by the significant environmental impacts. Most significant being noise, congestion and air pollution. This is a poorly thought out scheme. The location of Southend Airport is totally unsuitable for significant expansion beyond its existing capacity. The benefits to the local community are unproven.

• There is absolutely no evidence that 7380 jobs can be created or that they will go to local people. This is a fictional figure that is being used to justify airport expansion. There is already established and expanding airport capacity in the South East. The environmental implications of this airport extension are catastrophic for the local area.

• I object in the strongest possible terms to the plans that will result in substantially increased air freight operations from Southend airport. The resultant noise pollution will have a significantly negative impact on the local area and in particular impact residential areas in Leigh on sea and Eastwood.

• I object to the extension of the existing runway as it will result in a significant increase in noise levels for local residents

• I strongly oppose the operation of flights of any kind outside of strict hours of control. In particular, I object to the operation of freight aircraft during the night. Freight aircraft are often older, noisier and more polluting than passenger types leading to a greater level of environmental degradation.

• The surface access plan will result in increased congestion. Main arterial routes (A127 and A13) are already very seriously congested. Airport expansion will make this considerably worse.

House values are now being destroyed.

Buyers for houses will disappear, as I have since heard. Who wants to live under a flight path?

Noise levels -who wants a plane over their house at 2.30am every night?

Disruption at schools due to increased noise levels.

Congestion on our already busy roads:

2 million passengers = 1 plane every 5mins peak/10mins off peak.

I would like to ask what is in it for Rochford people? After all, it is our council that has the lead in the planning applications, not Southend Council.

The fields between the rail track and Southend Road, after the bridge, are often touted as being the green belt, a wedge to act as a buffer to
restrict the effects of the airport noise/pollution on the local residents.

This is the Green Belt that will not be allowed to have the car parks on them, the Green Belt that cannot be touched and is safe from
development.

This would be the fields where they have already started to chop down the trees and have diggers digging up the grass and reducing the land that
the horses can use.

If anyone has been using the road to the A127 that the freight trucks will use, you may have noticed that it is now double yellow lined.

This is Rochford Road, from the Bell/A127 towards the airport, the road that has always had local residents' cars and vans parked there.

It would seem that for years the buses managed to get up and down satisfactorily. The big blue earth moving trucks of the Rochford firm JFT (?) manage satisfactorily, the car transporters, with trailers going to the scrap yards managed satisfactorily.

Does, therefore, the professional transport firm of Eddie Stobart Transport envisage
a large increase in Heavy Goods traffic?

I think these are just small steps that get sneaked in as the councils
already have decided that they will get their way.

Adequate/full compensation must be provided for all properties due to "Flight Blight"; which may well prevent anyone in the area selling their property for a realistic commercial price in the foreseeable future.

I understand that the Uttlesford District already severely suffers this situation within a five mile radius, due to the Stansted expansion plans and potential extended settlement claim delays are always inevitable. The Stobart Group must undertake prior compensation guarantees on an individual claim basis - if they are so confident that this will bring so much prosperity to the town. The Stobart Group/Council could then "cost" this within the overall budget.

It should also be noted that if the projected flight patterns are realised then extensive additions to the inadequate road network would be required (proper access only viable by the West?), resulting in further properties outside the flight path then subject to road blight, with likely compulsory purchases.

Overall, this would become a nightmare situation in the many years ahead while the Council stumbles on with its ill conceived speculative proposals and the consequent associated rumours and doubts, which will continue to suppress property prices in the whole of this area for a considerable period; regardless of the current "Credit Crunch".

With unstable fuel prices, this is no time to be expanding an airport: between 2007 and July 2008 aviation fuel doubled in price and the airline industry reported huge losses. British Airways responded by increasing the price of long-haul flights, mothballing some aircraft and cancelling orders for others. In July 2008 the price of oil reached the record level of $147 a barrel. At a conference in Istanbul in June 2008, the International Air Transport Association said it would cost its members $6.1 billion if oil traded at over $135 a barrel (which it has done and could well do again in the future). In 2008 24 airlines had gone bankrupt and more bankruptcies are expected by the industry. Expanding Southend airport now is like a bank telling you that subprime mortgages are a great investment for the future!



Another reason to question the economic viability of the expansion of Southend airport is the dependency such expansion has on governmental support in the absence of any tax on aircraft fuel or any VAT on ticket sales. This provides the industry with a significant government subsidy. In 2007 the World Development Movement (WDM) estimated that this subsidy amounted to approximately £10.4 billion per year. Projections for future aviation growth suggest that the size of this subsidy could rise to around £17.5 billion and some politicians have questioned whether we can continue to subsidise the airline industry to this level, particularly when there are more pressing needs. (This is nearly 850 times more than the UK's annual spending on flood defences- very important for us with memories of the 31st January 1953 tidal surge north sea flooding).



Most importantly for Southend as a potential holiday town airport expansion will impact severely on our local economy. This is supported by the experience of the Travelodge. Giving evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee inquiry on tourism, the company reported that inward tourism spending declined by 16 per cent between 1995 and 2002, while outward spending increased by 48 per cent. One of the main reasons for this, Travelodge said, was that the wider availability of cheap flights which meant more people were choosing to fly abroad for short breaks. Surely we would prefer people to come to Southend for their short breaks and spend their money here? Travelodge's figures indicate a tourism balance of trade deficit for the UK of £18 billion over a seven-year period. There are significant sums of money for a regional economy like Southend to lose should the airport expand. Travelodge's analysis suggests that a 10 per cent reduction in overseas flights by UK tourists by 2020 could boost tourism revenue within the UK, creating more than 30,000 jobs.



The environmental argument against expansion have been stated but are worth reiterating. The UK's aviation accounts for approximately 6.3 per cent of CO2 emissions and about 12.6 per cent of the UK's contribution to climate change and this makes up a greater proportion of the country's contribution to climate change than in any other major economy. This is a shameful legacy we leave future generations.



So there are sound economic reasons why objectors are making a lot of noise about opposing the airport expansion. In a world of more expensive and declining fuel, expansion makes no sense. Instead imagine more people taking short breaks in Southend, boosting our local economy and the workers of Southend airport employed in large scale offshore and inshore wind turbine production, or the development of offshore wave turbine technology, Southend the hub of a new renewable industry. This would be a legacy we could be proud of leaving our children instead of more flights, noise, pollution and wasted resources the airport expansion will leave them.

When The Stobart Group announced its purchase of Southend Airport last year, chief executive Andrew Tinkler announced: "Acquisition of Southend Airport is a major opportunity for Stobart to advance the implementation of its multimodal strategy. At one stroke, we have found our southern base and greatly enhanced our position as a leading point-to-point service provider for customers in the UK and Europe who require fast and efficient services by air as part of their logistics solutions."



"At one stroke we have found our southern base" - this is the most dramatic and telling sentence in the announcement. >From Stobart's "greatly enhanced position" its strategic acquisition of the airport is driven by air freight, the core business of Stobart Air, with huge clients such as Tesco shifting high value/low volume goods by air. It is perhaps beginning to dawn on us that the passenger services being mooted are window dressing, primarily in the mix to appeal to high numbers of local residents (and gullible decision makers), not living on the doorstep of the airport and therefore not immediately affected by noise and air pollution and traffic congestion, who will be seduced by the prospect of convenient holiday flights and therefore support the overall proposal.



Also, it would not be surprising, given Stobart's motives, to see their operation occupy the proposed business parks and industrial estates (possibly building aircraft hangars and lorry parks) if and when these properties fail to attract tenants and provide the much trumpeted "seven-thousand new jobs", especially during an economic downturn, or the "decades of austerity" recently promised.



Many local councillors who support the JAAP truly believe that the airport expansion will bring growth and prosperity to the town, even at the cost of blighting the lives of the local community and increase noise and air pollution. Is the Councils' "vision" being driven by vanity? "Jobs at any cost" seems to be the mantra, but there is no proof that these jobs will materialise or go to local people or that prosperity will come to the town or that passenger air travel will increase in a greener age and provide Stobart with meaningful income from take offs and landings, whereas their air freight business will undoubtedly grow as we all buy more high-tech kit for the home (from Tesco and the like).



Further, the "£21m deal" that Stobart signed provides for a tranche of that consideration to be deferred, subject to "the achievement of certain aspects of the airport's developments." This is pretty standard stuff, i.e. I will give you £1m for that plot of land but a third of it will only be payable if planning permission is granted." (It would be hard to see such a deal drawn up if Stobart were buying the airport direct from the Council!) In Stobart's case, they are committed it seems to £16m - and they surely did their sums. One presumes this was an affordable investment to achieve "at one stroke" a southern base, especially as they believe "the Group can achieve synergies [cost savings] from integrating air with its existing operations". It would appear that the remaining £5m will only be payable (to Regional Airports Ltd, previous owners of Southend Airport who acquired it from the local authorities in 1994) if Stobart's planning objectives (which may be the "preferred option" in the JAAP) are achieved. One imagines that, along with Rochford and Southend Councils, Regional Airports Ltd supports the proposals.



What this seems to mean: If the runway extension is not granted, Stobart will probably continue to grow their air freight business in older and noisier planes and still make good on their £16m investment. Night flights, of which I believe 900+ per month are allowed, i.e. 30 a night (!) are possibly being suppressed during the current consultation period, but will soon increase because this is when a lot of air freight moves, i.e. when the skies are clearer of passenger flights and joy riders. If the runway extension goes through, bigger planes can take off and land, potentially increasing income from passenger flights - assuming the business is there - and an increase in air freight capacity at night. I must confess I am not an expert in these matters and have not fully researched aircraft and runways, except to note that a 1799m runway will allow the take off and landing of, let us say, bigger planes. Either way it's a win-win for Stobart, a lose-lose for thousands of local residents, property values and possibly Council Tax returns, and a big gamble for Rochford and Southend Councils.

This is a response from Hounslow NHS Trust on health issues on the third runway dated October 2008.


Hounslow health chiefs plan Heathrow comp bid
Oct 22 2008 By Robert Cumber

Plane over Heathrow

Heathrow's owners could be sued for millions of pounds in compensation by Hounslow health chiefs amid claims a third runway would seriously damage the well-being of residents living nearby.

Board members at NHS Hounslow (formerly Hounslow PCT) have discussed how they would seek the massive payout should BAA get the go-ahead to increase flights by up to 50 per cent.

The Trust says airport noise and pollution can cause asthma and mental health problems as well as lowering life expectancy for those with existing heart and respiratory problems.

In the minutes of a board meeting held earlier this year, members discussed how they would work with Hounslow Council and the NHS to push for compensation from BAA Heathrow for the increased workload.

"There would be increased financial pressures on the PCT and added strain on health services from the direct effects of the development and from the increased numbers of airport passengers using the local NHS," said the Trust's former chief executive John James. "Should the development proceed we would expect it to be on condition that the impact on local health and well-being was monitored so additional remedial action could take place if needed, and the costs from doing so were met by the airport operators."

NHS Hounslow, which began the year £22 million in the red and has been given three years to pay off its historic debt, added that BAA could face similar claims from eight other trusts lying under the flight path.

A BAA spokesman said: "If the Government takes a policy decision to support future growth at Heathrow, a full health impact assessment would be conducted as part of any planning application.
"A third runway will not go ahead unless air quality is better than today and there are improvements to public transport.
"This is not growth at any cost, this is growth within strict environmental limits."

The only was the Stobart Group can make this airport viable is by landing & take off charges.

They must have freight, maintenance and passenger running around the clock to make it pay. Even putting aside the larger planes, this will be like a mini Stansted in a built up town.

Please take the time to read this information.



http://www.exeter-airport.co.uk/assets/Master%20Plan/9.%20Safeguarding.pdf



Info about Public Safety Zones Bird strikes (I think the JAAP is floored)

Also more safety info on these links which is a global standard.



http://www.air-rail.co.uk/resources/11-Walbrun+Air+Rail+Engineering.pdf



http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Level1/IFALPA%20Statements/Airport%20Issues/09POS01%20-%20Runway%20Safety.pdf



http://www.acconline.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/AgencyComments/AC150-5325-4BComments.pdf

Please note the following comparisons, taken from the Internet.

Runway lengths. Southend. 1605m. current.
Southend 1799m. proposed.
London City. 1319m.
Southampton. 1723m.

With a Full Payload the following aircraft require a minimum runway length of:-

Airbus A310 1860m.
A318 *** 1355m. 109/118 passengers?
A319 1950m. 124/144 passengers?
A320 2090m. 179 passengers.

Boeing 737/300 1990m.
All other Boeing 737's require 2400m. plus.

*** They are looking to fly 100/150 passengers a time out of Southend, the A318 is the obvious choice, with a full payload the current runway length is more than adequate.
Even with a runway extension, the A319 could still not fly out of here with a full payload, nor could any of the Boeing 737 range, which also rules out Easyjet and Ryanair.
This poses the question, why extend the runway.
With the expense involved together with all the opposition to this, there is a strong case for leaving things as the are.
It doesn't make economic sense to fly an A319 or a Boeing 737 out of here with say a 65% payload, especially as the A318 is suitable for the present runway length.

Why not extend to 1800m. because that extra meter and above brings in a different set of regulations that the infrastructure at Southend and surrounding area is unsuitable to support.

The main runway here at Southend is known as 06/24 (060 & 240, degrees on the compass)

Direction of 'take off' and 'landing' is almost exclusively controlled by wind direction of 5 knots or greater, with a cross wind, the best direction is selected or it may well be optional.
Crosswinds approaching 30 knots will usually curtail the movements of smaller aircraft, the short runway 15/33 fell into disuse some 20,years ago, but it's still there!
The approximate frequency for direction of movements is 65-70% from runway 24 out over Leigh and of course 30-35% out over Rochford.
Pretty obvious to those under the flight path, but not everyone living elsewhere would necessarily be fully aquainted.