Jason Yates
Leigh-on-Sea.

Development Control
Southend Borough Council
PO Box 5557
Southend-on-Sea
Essex.
SS2 6ZF

OBJECTION to Planning Application Reference 09/01960/FULM

Summary of Objections:

1. The application is premature and prejudices the important consultation work the council is currently carrying out to find out what is the best option for the airport site. Many of the effects of the proposal have yet to be independently measured. The work that has been carried out so far indicates that very few people want the runway extension and many people object to it.
2. It will mean a huge increase in jet aircraft flights over my home and the noise these will produce will also greatly increase.
3. Southend’s economy depends on a well educated workforce. The effect of the runway extension on our schools could be disastrous.
4. The proposal will result in more traffic on our already congested roads and this has not been properly thought about.
5. There will be negative consequences economically due to the net outflow of money in tourism, a relative reduction in house prices, and a lower quality of life leading to business not wanting to come here and people not wanting to live here. This will in turn mean less money is spent locally.
6. The proposal will result in more air pollution. I want the air I breath to be clean and unpolluted.
7. The proposal will inevitably lead to a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions. This will have a negative impact on the wider environment.
8. The proposal will have a profoundly negative effect on the local environment, will destroy the setting of a Grade 1 listed building and will lead to the destruction of 6 period cottages without the alternatives being properly explored.
9. The lives of many people will be put at increased risk and a swathe of the local area will subjected to planning blight as a result of being in the safety zone.

I write to you early on Sunday morning as I listen to jet plane after jet plane fly over my flat in Leigh. I wonder if, in the view of the current planning application to extend the runway, I will ever have an undisturbed nights sleep again.

This application is the most significant thing that has happened to this town in at least 40 years. It’s the closest we have come to disaster since the mistakes made in the 1960’s when the seafront trunk road almost ploughed its way through Old Leigh (fortunately it stopped at the ugly road bridge west of Leigh Station) and the Southend inner ring road almost ploughed its way through the conservation area in Milton Ward (which would have destroyed the lovely characterful housing we see now and replaced it with the not very successful towerblocks we see nearby in the form of Chiltern, Mendip and the like).

Back then, we are told, Southend was the third busiest airport in the UK and the number of flights was higher than now. People didn’t complain about progress in those days- the days of a much lower quality of life, of no central heating and no inside toilets in many cases. Nowadays, people are far more empowered, are far more likely to complain about low flying aircraft over their homes and to vote out the councillors who allowed it to happen.

The environmental and conservation argument has moved on considerably: we are beginning to see all around us the effects of climate change in terms of erratic weather, news reports of whole island nations being reclaimed by the sea and threats to the East of England coastline, requiring millions of pounds of remedial work investment to put right. You will perhaps know of projects already required to provide sea defences in this area.

Southend Council have quite rightly signed the Nottingham Accord, giving a commitment to reduce the carbon emissions from this town to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. This promise is set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy, a document which has been thoroughly consulted on and is meant to reflect peoples concerns and aspirations and sets out what the Council is going to do about them.

Southend Council is halfway through another major consultation exercise, the Joint Area Action Plan. The results of the last round of consultation were recently published following a freedom of information request back in June. In total, objectors outnumbered those in favour of the extension to the runway by ten to one. Over 2300 people responded, which in terms of public consultations, is a high figure, and had this been a proper formal yes or no referendum on the runway extension, it would have translated into the vast majority of people in the town voting no. People do not want this extension, Southend Borough Council should have the opportunity to consider this, refuse this application and update the JAAP accordingly to take account of people’s views. In contrast the consultation conducted by the airport associated with the application is pitiful with only 153 responses. The publicity must have been singularly ineffective- I did not know about it and I am very concerned with this subject. To be even considering this application before the JAAP process is finished, is potentially undemocratic, the only sensible thing to do would be to turn this application down.

I therefore object to this application because it is premature and prejudices the important consultation work the council is currently carrying out to find out what is the best option for the airport site. The work that has been carried out so far indicates that very few people want the runway extension and many people object to it.

The Transport Assessment associated with this application has some questionable figures about the increase in the number of flights associated with the extension of the runway. It appears to assume that there will be a huge increase in the number of flights whether or not the runway is built. The question I would ask you is, if the Airport operator does not require a runway extension to expand, why are they so determined that the council consider such a potentially devastating application to extend the runway? Why, if this is the case, has Southend airport shrunk so much since its hey day in the 1960’s? Why does the transport assessment say that there will be only a rise of 5% in congestion on our roads? Figures such as this should not go unquestioned. An independent consultant, with no interest in the airport or the council, should looking into what the runway extension will mean for increased flights, increased noise and increased traffic.

What will a huge increase in flights mean for Southend? The transport assessment tells us that there will be a 20 fold increase in commercial flights with the runway extension. So the mix of light aircraft and jet planes we have been used to will become predominantly jet planes. The local press has talked about a limit of 53,300 flights a year and the transport assessment appears to demonstrate that this is the figure required to reach the huge limit of passenger numbers of 2 million per year.

This number of flights has a potentially devastating effect on the quality of life in Southend- one of the things that Southend Council has committed to improve in its Sustainable Community Strategy. A plane every 15 minutes will fly over our homes during the day causing untold stress to us all. The World Health Organisation recommends a decibel level of under 30 dB for individual noise events to ensure peoples basic human right of a good nights sleep. With the 120 night flights a month reportedly coming our way, individual noise events of 80 dB- many, many, times higher than 30dB- will hit us four times every night. How many times would you like to be woken up every night for the rest of your life? I would suggest that once is too much.

I object to this application because of the increase in jet aircraft flights over my home and the noise that these will produce. The effects of noise will not just be about disturbed sleep.

Although I do not have children, I have great sympathy with those who do when faced with the long term repercussions of this application. There are many schools on the flight path, and the education of thousands of children is at stake. Noise is not good for concentration or productivity. There are reports that in the current situation, Blenheim School has to pause its lessons while planes fly overhead. This application will mean- even on the flawed transport assessment figures- a 20 fold increase in commercial flights.

Much has been made of the economic benefits of extending the runway and yet how real will these be?

The JAAP talked about the creation of over 6000 jobs associated with the airport. However most of these were actually in business parks and industrial estates, some replacing current commercial developments with employment already attached to them anyway. The number of jobs directly created by the airport has been claimed to only be about 100. Anecdotal evidence about he construction and design of the new railway station appears to show that Stobart are not employing local people to do this as the skills do not exist in the area. We therefore must question how many of these 100 jobs will be given to local people.

Southend’s economy depends on a well educated workforce. The effect of the runway extension on our schools could be disastrous.

How will an increased number of flights affect tourism? The net result of the runway extension could be a huge outflow of money from the town. The UK is a net exporter of tourism because more people want to go abroad and spend money there than they do here. To increase tourism here, we must give people a reason to visit. Who will want to visit a place blighted by aircraft noise? Is it likely that people will want to fly to Southend as a holiday destination rather than Spain, Portugal France, etc?

Surely it is far more likely that people will want to visit Southend by road? The A127 and the A13 are already seriously congested arteries and the runway extension will add considerably to this burden. I do not believe the transport assessment submitted with this application addresses this issue sufficiently. The application contains no improvements to road infrastructure other than a few roundabouts and the rerouting of Eastwoodbury Lane (thereby destroying a historically significant route). The economic sustainability of our town depends partly on our road infrastructure. Will business want to move here (or tourists want to visit here) if our roads are clogged?

I object to this application because it will cause more traffic on our already congested roads and this has not been properly thought about.

Will people want to live in a place blighted by aircraft noise? I would suggest that a plane flying over our heads every 15 minutes will have a huge effect on house prices. People will want to move to a quieter area with schools also undisturbed by aircraft noise. The effects of low house prices will be self perpetuating. Less people will want to live in an area as it becomes less well to do. Those remaining will be the people determined to stay and those unable to leave. This will have a massive effect on local businesses and the amount of money spent in our local shops.

Southend’s workforce need to be productive and yet, if they live here, their sleep will be disturbed by 120 night flights a month. If any jobs are created by the airport, I doubt whether the majority of people will want to settle in Southend.

I object to this application because there will be negative consequences economically due to the net outflow of money in tourism, a relative reduction in house prices, a lower quality of life leading to business not wanting to come here and people not wanting to live here.

There is a growing body of research on the effects of aircraft noise on people’s mental health. Increasingly it is being shown that the constant stress of such noise makes people feel depressed and affects concentration.

The twenty- fold increase in the number of commercial flights will mean much more jet aircraft flying overhead and mean more air pollution. Southend Council is committed to improving the health of its population in its Sustainable Community Strategy and a healthy workforce is essential to the economic future of this town.

I object to this application because it will mean more air pollution. I want the air I breath to be clean and unpolluted.

What about Southend’s pledge to reduce carbon emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020? The environmental statement submitted with the application is pitiful on this point as the figures are clearly skewed in favour of the application. The carbon emissions from aircraft only take account of take offs and landings. However we all know that the carbon emissions from a light aircraft taking a short flight around the area for leisure purposes is a world away from a commercial jet plane flight to Spain or Portugal. Jet planes are far more fuel hungry and we will experience a 20 fold increase in commercial flights. The EA does not consider the carbon emissions from new buildings other than to say that it would be better to build efficient new ones. I have already questioned whether the airport will actually expand without the runway extension and the EA assumes that it will. The result of this biased exercise is that the carbon emissions from the airport with an extended runway will be double those without the extension. At 46,327 tonnes -a huge underestimate given that it ignores where planes are flying to- the emissions will still be many times more than the existing situation.

I object to this application because it will lead to a huge increase in carbon dioxide emissions from activities in this town. This will have a negative impact on the wider environment.

St Laurence and All Saints Church is a Grade 1 listed building and the application fails to take account of the likely impact of vastly increased levels of noise on the setting of this building. This should be a place for quiet contemplation and prayer, which will be impossible. Where is the report analysing the Architectural significance of this building and the likely negative effect of having a medium sized regional airport situated in its back yard?

The application also assumes destruction of six period cottages without any analysis of their historic and Architectural significance or how the lives of people who made their home there will be affected by this proposal. The application also contains no analysis of the different potential options to keep these cottages.

South East Essex has huge areas of natural beauty and in particular habitats for birds and other wildlife. The amount of noise needs to be mitigated and the effect of the extension on these wildlife habitats properly analysed.

I object to this application because it will have a profoundly negative effect on the local environment, will destroy the setting of a Grade 1 listed building and will lead to the destruction of 6 period cottages without the alternatives being properly explored.

The extension to the runway will mean an extended public safety zone cutting into the heart of Leigh, going as far as Elmsleigh Drive and slicing through Blenheim School. People living, working or going to school in this zone will suffer increased risk of being killed or injured by an aviation accident. No new development will be allowed to take place in this zone. Imagine the effect it will have on house prices. Such planning blight is unforgivable in a town that needs regenerating.

I therefore also object to this application because it will subject a swathe of the local area to planning blight and will put at risk the lives of local children and residents living in the safety zone.

Finally, it is unclear how the much publicised restrictions on flights will be connected to the application. It is clear that 53,300 flights annually is too high and should be reduced. Southampton only has 10 night flights a month, City Airport has none. Given the likely serious effects of such flights, we should be considering a total ban. The reported proposals make some attempt at controlling where planes fly by trying to ensure most of them take off in the north-west unless it is unsafe to do so. The prevailing south-west wind will clearly stop fights taking off in the north-west direction a lot of the time and it would be good to have an independent assessment of this to find out how ineffective this policy will be. More importantly, a policy of restricting flying to narrow corridors avoiding built up areas should be considered. I would suggest that it should be possible to avoid built up areas like Leigh completely. Finally, restrictions in terms of decibels for maximum individual noise events in key areas of the town (particularly Leigh) should also be considered.

The likely effects I have talked about here all need independently measuring. The best vehicle for doing this would be to continue with the JAAP consultation. The decision Southend faces is important, will affect us all and should not be taken lightly. We will have to live with the consequences for decades to come. This application is hugely premature and should be refused to allow the JAAP process to continue. Leigh-on-Sea is a pleasant place to live in at the moment, why allow such an ill conceived application to spoil it?

Yours Sincerely,

Jason Yates.