London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

Object

Representation ID: 10811

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

1.5 Preferred Options Report
We do not belive that sufficient weight has been given to the concerns in the responses to the Issues and Options consultation

Object

Representation ID: 10812

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

We oppose the runway extension, which would make the airport more attractive to airline operators, and we do not believe the assertion about quieter aircraft. No evidence has been given to show comparative noise levels of current and likely future aircraft using the airport.
Passenger levels should only increase with organic growth based on the current runway. The proposal for 2million ppa is excessive for an airport bof this size with the proposed infrastructure, particularly roads. Te increase in noise and pollution to residents will be unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 10813

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

High scale employment is not appropriate, given the existing & preferred infrastructure.
The airport should not be a driver for the local economy. Employment levels should be limited to Maintenance Repair and Overhaul.
We support only low scale employment growth, up to 15,000 sq.met of B1 floorspace and 620 new jobs

Object

Representation ID: 10814

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

No details are given of new developments and opportunities for public open space, this cannot be supported if no proper information is given.
We support general recreational enhancements such as a Nature Park.
No details are given on controls on the airport operation or sustainable transport strategies. There must be a specified restriction on the types of aircraft used, the numbers of flights and restrictions on night flights. This will give a proper basis to limit noise, numbers, and types of aircraft when formal planning applications are made

Object

Representation ID: 10815

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

Very few details are given about how a travel strategy will be introduced.
The sorts of proposals that we need to see are:
1. There need to be special trains from London to the new airport station.
2. There needs to be a travel plan for airport staff and businesses on or near the airport.
3. There needs to be a park and ride scheme to the airport, with the parking area some way out along the A127.
4. Parking fees at the airport should be high to deter parking.
5. Local bus services should be improved.
The JAAP must have some specific proposals for a strategy

Object

Representation ID: 10816

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

Area ii(a) North of Aviation Wayis not suitable for employment expansion and should remain as agricultural land.
Area ii(d) South of Brickworks site, currently playing pitches is not suitable for class B1 development and should not be changed.
Area x RESA area safety zone to accomodate the runway extension. We oppose the extension to the runway
Area xi Land South west of Nestuda Way. Should remain as footbal pitches. Putting a park and ride facility for Southend here is ridiculous, encouraging cars to travel on increasingly congested roads to a parking area next to an airport

Object

Representation ID: 10817

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

The target of 7380 jobs is too high. There is no indication of where these jobs will come from or who will fund the new jobs, or what type of job will be created, or whether the jobs will create further in and out commuting.
These jobs could simply relocate existing jobs from older less viable areas.
The proposed 50/50 split of new jobs between Rochford and Southend looks more like a political imperative than a realistic assessment

Object

Representation ID: 10818

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

The number of jobs proposed is too high.
The comment about eco-friendly busines start up units sound like a sop to the environmental lobby. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS ASSERTION!

Object

Representation ID: 10819

Received: 09/05/2009

Respondent: Leigh Town Council

The policy should give the same restrictive times on cargo flights as passenfger flights.
There needs to be a specified 'agreed noise quota'
Residents living under the flight path do not recognise any difference between passenger and cargo flights in terms of time or noise.