London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan

London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan

The JAAP refers toa range of policies that support further expansion at Southend Airport.Here is a hyperlink to the Rochford council internet sitewhich provides an introduction: -

http://www.rochford.gov.uk/planning/policy/local_development_framework/london_southend_airport/jaap-submission-document

This is the hyperlink to the page where you can submit your objection: - http://rochford.jdi-consult.net/jaap/

There is a great deal of information in the JAAP and a couple of bitsare inaccurate or out of date. Two of the maps in the paper version of the document are wrong. One shows an out of date map of the public safety area.Also the layout of the "policies" section, from page 23 onwards, ispoor. It is at first sight difficult to tell which parts of the text relate to the various questions posed in the consultation.

If you are short of time, object at least to the first introductory section.

On the JAAP website you click on this document: -

"London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Submission Document"

Click on

1. Introduction.

Click on the Green Pencil logo to show you are responding.

Indicate in the box that appearsthat you "object"

And type this in the comments box: -

Southend Airporthas more housing in its immediate vicinity than any other regional airport in the UK. It is therefore grossly misleading for the JAAP document to suggest that the local councils have done anything to limit or reduce the number of people who suffer from aircraft noise. The councils have failed in their duty of care to the local population by doing everything in their power to increase flights andnoise. The disgraceful decision to allow night flights poses a serious threat to the health of the people who now have to suffer absolute misery caused by the irresponsible and callous expansion of the airport. The document is unsound, it is based upon a series of false assumptions, including the claim that it will create jobs and that the airport is in any way "sustainable". Operations at Southend Airport are sucking money out of the UK economy by encouraging ever larger numbers of people to take holidays abroad. And it is impossible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by flying ever more aircraft.The first year of operations at the airport indicate that around 500 jobs have been created, of which around half were transferred from Stanstead. However an analysis provided by SEEFoE suggests that the number of tourists who travelled abroad exported around £300 million from the UK economy, which is equivalent to over 10,000 jobs lost to the Essex/Londoneconomy. Worse still the councils have squandered public money on various facilities associated with the airport and the airport has stripped £millions out of the local economy by devaluingproperty near the airport and flight path.

The last JAAP process showed that around 80% of respondents did not want the high growth scenario for airport expansion and an opinion poll last year showed that 61% of local people opposed expansion.

Summary

The policy to expand the airport serves as an example of unsound, unsustainable, irresponsible development. The JAAP supports the precise opposite of "evidence based policy". The local population oppose it and are suffering real misery as a result of the callous actions of the two councils.

You are then asked some questions. Please show: -

DPD Legally compliant - no

DPD sound - no

All four boxes ticked as reasons for unsound

You can opt to make your objections in person at any future public inquiry but you may prefer not to. It is up to you.

It would be great if you objected to other sections of the JAAP document but there is no dodging the fact that this will be time consuming. If you are happy to make further comments you may find the objections that SEEFoE submitted to be helpful. These are set out below: -

JAAP Consultation: objection submitted by SEEFoE (South East Essex Friends of the Earth)

Introduction

-----

The JAAP is fundamentally flawed, irrational, many of the objectives are undeliverable and it contradicts three of the four key objectives in the Government's Aviation Policy Framework.

Before going into detail on these points, it is important to stress that the local community is appalled that the original JAAP process and consultation was ignored, it was suspended when London Southend Airport (LSA) submitted its planning application and has only now been resurrected after the Airport has extended the runway, facilitating a massive expansion in operations.

The original JAAP process showed that the majority of people opposed the scale of expansion that had been proposed by the Councils and their views were completely ignored. More recently, this group conducted its own public opinion poll and found that 61% of people still oppose expansion of the airport.

Turning to the Aviation Policy Framework, it is irrational to the point of being perverse to suggest that the JAAP will make its contribution to ensuring that the aviation sector makes a contribution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. It is impossible to expand operations at Southend Airport to the extent planned and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is fantasy to assume otherwise.

Southend Airport is surrounded on all sides by large numbers of houses, indeed it has more housing in its immediate vicinity than any other regional airport in the UK. It is therefore grossly misleading for the JAAP document to suggest that the local councils have done anything to limit or reduce the number of people who suffer from aircraft noise. The councils have failed in their duty of care to the local population by doing everything in their power to increase flights and therefore noise. The disgraceful decision to allow night flights poses a serious threat to the health of the people who now have to suffer absolute misery caused by this irresponsible and callous development.

The airport is responsible for its own Airport Consultation Committee and selects the members itself. This results in an entirely toothless organisation that does not represent the views of the local population. Indeed, the residents action committee - SAEN - has been refused membership of this committee. It is therefore impossible to suggest that LSA engages in a meaningful way with its local stakeholders.

Summary

------

The JAAP is fundamentally flawed, irrational, many of the objectives are undeliverable and it contradicts three of the four key objectives in the Government's Aviation Policy Framework.

The JAAP consultation process has been flawed from the start and it has been clear that the councils had made their minds up before seeking the views of the public.

This plan will result in massive increases in greenhouse gas emissions, a deterioration in health of the local population caused by additional noise and it permits LSA to continue to ignore the views of local people.

Representation - SEEFoE will appear in person

------

The previous consultation process proved that the Local Authority was incapable of handling written objections correctly. Members of the local campaign group (SAEN) went to the Southend Civic Centre to examine the responses to LSA's planning application to extend the runway and found that numerous objections had been filed as support. We cannot trust the Local Authority and it is therefore essential that this group presents its information directly at the Examination.

Change

------

We would like an honest document that told the truth and didn't seek to wilfully deceive the Secretary of State and the public. The JAAP is so flawed and irrational and contradicts other Government policies that it is not legally compliant and could be challenged in a court of law.

DPD Legally compliant - no

DPD sound - no

all four boxes ticked as reasons for unsound

======

2. Vision and Objectives

------

The vision is patently irrational. You cannot increase the quality of life for residents and workers by subjecting them to increased aviation noise, pollution and the utter misery of night flights. Other than by the poorly-used railway station, the airport is reachable only via residential roads. The local road network is not able to cope with the proposed volume of traffic and this will have a negative impact on the local area.

It is important to note that the Saxon Business Park is in fact largely going to be filled with existing businesses relocated from Eldon Way in Hockley, which is proposed for demolition by the Hockley Area Action Plan. It is therefore dishonest to suggest to the Secretary of State that the Saxon Business Park is bringing exclusively new jobs to the area.

It must also be noted that it is overly optimistic to suggest that large numbers of employers will relocate next to an airport that will impose noise disruption, danger and an increasingly congested road network. If anything, there is a danger that many employers, like the local population, would prefer to move away.

Expanded operations at the airport have now been in place for just over one year and it is now clear that the overwhelming majority of passengers are UK citizens who are travelling abroad. Precise information is not yet available on the number of foreign tourists attracted to LSA, but we will work to secure this information before the examination.

However, to provide an interim guide, if approximately 800,000 UK passengers have flown abroad, that is equivalent to a trade loss of £316 million which equates to 12,640 jobs lost from the Essex and London economy. (Based upon UK average of £395 spent abroad per passenger.)

SAEN notes on SEEFoE response: Please note that on 22/3/2013, after SEEfoE made its submission, new data was published by the airport. This showed that a total of 721,661 passengers flew from the airport in the year leading up to February 2012.

The JAAP is grossly misleading in failing to make any reference to the huge scale of loss of revenue to this area.

Another area that has been overlooked is the massive loss of wealth to the area caused by devaluation of property under and near the flight path.

Again, information is not yet finalised but reports from surveyors specialising in compensation suggest that some homes will have been devalued by up to 15%, many hundreds, possibly thousands by between 5 and 10%. If it is indeed true that 4500 homes have lost what is claimed, then the local economy may have been deprived of over £50m.

We really must challenge the statement "and with only a fraction of the residential noise impacts of other airports". The number of complaints from people concerning noise belies this statement. Furthermore, the area is already subject to low level flights both visible and audible en route to London City Airport, which has been added to by those to LSA.

We must also challenge the statement that "The runway extension is a key factor in the ability of the airport to accommodate the latest advances in medium sized passenger aeroplanes (100 to 150 seats), which are quieter and more fuel efficient than their predecessors, and can take-off in shorter distances and depart more quickly from local airspace." This is not correct; even extended to 1799m, the runway remains short. Future fuel efficient airliners require longer runways.

Finally, the suggestion that a new link road has been built to facilitate access to the airport needs to be challenged. At the Public Inquiry into the stopping up of a section of Eastwoodbury Lane and Footpath 121, it was categorically denied by LSA that this route would be used to access the airport. It was claimed that traffic would be directed via Manners Way, an existing residential street.

Summary

------

* Quality of life cannot be improved by subjecting people to more noise and pollution.

* Job creation claims are misleading because many jobs are simply being moved from another business park a few miles down the road

* Few employers likely to relocate next to an airport

* Airport takes substantial money and jobs out of the local economy both directly and through loss of property value

Changes

------

We would like an honest document that told the truth and didn't seek to wilfully deceive the Secretary of State and the public. We would also like a policy that does not suck millions of pounds out of the local economy and instead encourages people to holiday at home, creating jobs within the UK.

======

3. Development Proposals for the JAAP

Section 3.1 repeats the assertion that the extended runway will allow for the use of modern, quieter medium-sized aeroplanes, whereas in fact the most fuel efficient airliners require a longer and wider runway than that which now exists at LSA.

(SAEN notes on SEEFoE response: Please note that on 22/3/2013, after SEEfoE made its submission, new data was published by the airport. This showed that a total of 721,661 passengers flew from the airport in the year leading up to February 2012.)