London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document

Expanded operations at LSA will result in a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to an increase in extreme weather events and flooding. It is therefore irrational to build any new development in areas that are susceptible to a high risk of flooding. The two councils' policies are irrational and unsound in the extreme.

What is needed is a comprehensive forward plan, not piecemeal development.

1. Environmental Controls Schedule

This Schedule shows that the daytime operation hours will be 06:30 to 23:00. This provides woefully inadequate protection to the local population. The loss of sleep is recognised as a serious threat to public health.

The Schedule also says there will be a limit of 120 ATMs per month during the nighttime period. This is callous and is vehemently rejected by this group and the local population at large. Our opinion poll survey showed that 81% of people vehemently objected to night flights. The Secretary of State should be provided with a map that shows the comparatively close proximity of housing to this airport and be invited to compare this to all other UK airports. In the light of this, the night flight regime is wholly inappropriate and unsound.

The Schedule notes that fewer than 50% of landings in daytime hours will be from the south west. In the light of the prevailing winds coming from the south west, we believe that this statement is incorrect and will not be adhered to. A log of all flights should be prepared and submitted annually to the Councils for release to the public.

The Schedule also makes reference to the Airport Consultative Committee. We have already outlined elsewhere in our responses that the ACC is not a representative body as its members have been selected by LSA and meetings are chaired by the airport director. Therefore, this body is not fit for purpose and a new body should be created or all such reports should go to the two local authorities.

2. Transport Issues

It is noted that traffic generated by JAAP development will be directed to the principle routes and discouraged from using local access roads. This is not enough. The JAAP should include more dynamic steps to protect residents in small local roads from fast and heavy traffic.

3. Introduction
It is noted that the Councils hope that new highway infrastructure will encourage use of sustainable low-carbon transport. This is unsound. It is vital that the JAAP acknowledges that increasing traffic does not improve sustainability and it does not reduce carbon emissions.
The suggestion that the Councils are seeking to achieve a modal shift away from the car is false. The reality is that by widening major roads and possibly building a new Rochford outer bypass (page 50), the Councils are in fact undermining this. New or widened roads will inevitably lead to an increase in traffic.

The points 1-3 above demonstrate that the thinking that underpins policy T1 is unsound.

We welcome the introduction of travel plans and attempts to ensure that people travel to work sustainably. However, it must be noted that the suggestions made elsewhere for major road-widening schemes and the possibility of a major new east-west link serve to undermine attempts to reduce traffic.
It will only be when the Councils, business and the public accept the limitations imposed by population and the size and geography of the area that people will commit to reducing the scale of car use and the need to travel sustainably.

The first point to note is that we are very concerned that the Park & Ride scheme that was proposed within the JAAP area has been abandoned. It is unrealistic and therefore unsound to expect to manage traffic growth unless some element of Park & Ride is incorporated.
It should also be noted that the more money that is squandered on road widening and/or a major new east-west link limits the funding that can be spent in support of public transport and therefore will undermine all efforts to reduce congestion and ensure that people travel sustainably.
We are concerned that nothing has been said about the need for bus lanes, bus activated signals, the need to reintroduce an 'early bird' rail ticket, etc. The JAAP does not provide as much detail as it should to outline how it will ensure that congestion is reduced and people travel more sustainably within the JAAP area.

We support this policy, but would like to see the addition of a commitment to maintain the Public Footpath network within the JAAP area, notably Footpath 36 which goes through the airport. We would also like to see a commitment to very low speed limits within the business parks and an outline of how safe cycle routes to and from the area will be provided.

We do support this policy, but we are concerned that no money should be squandered on road widening and/or a major new east-west link limits the funding that can be spent in support of public transport and therefore will undermine all efforts to reduce congestion and ensure that people travel sustainably.

We vehemently object to squandering public money on road widening and/or a major new east-west link. It is important to remember that the nation will grow by around 10million people over the next 22 years, oil is a finite resource and its cost will gradually force people to drive less and climate change will begin to impose such serious costs that it will be necessary to reduce car use. In the light of the scale of these issues, it would be irrational and unsound to spend money on major road developments.
It is also important to remember that substantial sums squandered on major road building limits the funding that can be spent in support of public transport. This will therefore undermine all efforts to reduce congestion and ensure that people travel sustainably.

The pretence this policy makes of "protection to the amenities of the residential properties on Southend Road" is laughable. This is woefully inadequate to provide any meaningful protection from the noise and pollution generated by LSA.

Our concern is that this policy does not get anywhere near meeting the environmental needs of the area. There is a grave risk of contamination from deicing chemicals and other toxic effluent from the airport. The Councils have thus far failed in the obligations to ensure that LSA provide the necessary infrastructure to store, treat and dispose of the various categories of sewage and contaminated water.