Arbottle: your points a) to g) are so inaccurate and far from the truth that I had to reply,
a) outline planning permission was granted in 1990 for replacement passenger terminal for the one that used to be in Baginton. This was subject to a time condition, that the works had to commence within so many years, 3 I think. When this failed to happen the airport put in for renewal, and this was given, once in '94 and once again in '98. When they tried to renew for a third time the council refused, largely because legislation has now changed, and such applications now need to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. So basically the origimal outline permission expired, through the airports own failure to build anything for 12 years. Noone elses fault but their own
b) The county policy is that coventry airport should be the focus of aviation activity in Warwickshire,yes, but in the context of BIA being down the road. It says any expansion should be only when acceptable environmental and mitigation proposals have been made, and when a 'green' travel plan is in place. None of these are in place.
The district councils plan identifies the airport land, it identifies no new land for airport development, in fact in designates most of the airport site, including its runway, as Green Belt land!
c) Warwick dc have never refused to speak to anyone. It is however the responsibility of the applicant (the airport) to consult all those affected, which they have spectactularly failed to do. As regards the timing of the eia and scoping reporrt, the airport asked Warwick dc for a scoping opinion (that is the subjects and scope of the environmental impact assessment), but bizarrely the airport chose to complete their EIA before the scoping opinion was published. It seems even then, just over a year ago, the airport was hell bent on ignoring the planning authority's views.
d) As part of the parcelforce development, the airport agreed to reduce the size of their operation on the Baginton side of the airport (section 106 agreement). Part of that was to reduce by 40% the size of its passenger terminal. There was no obligation on WDC to grnt planning perimission for a replacement, but in the event outline permission had been given, see a) above.
e) the traffic impact assessement supplied by the airport to support its application suggests that the airport will generate on 16 vehicles in the evening peak hour, thereby having no great impact on tollbar end roundabout. However the flight schedule used to generate thes flows, does not bear much realation to thomsonflys schedule: their timetable shows arrivals and departures both generating traffic movements in pm peak hours. In addition the traffic impact assesment also assumed 70% of pax could park on site. This was never going to be the case and certainly isnt now. As a result the bulk of passengers are drop off movements generating twice as much traffic.
f) the council, along with all reasonable people, can distinguish fairly easily lies from the truth. The airport are hardly squeaky clean an have done themselves no favours whatsoever.
g) The white paper certainly does NOT support the expansion of coventry airport. Neither does it dismiss it. It sits firmly on the fence and says 'it is a matter for local determination'. As such it seems strange that the airport have got on the wrong side of WDC as they are the people who will be determing the application locally.
Yorky towers:
An interesting concept, aircraft jet engines that leave a wake of clean fresh air behind them. Get it patented quick, youre on your way to your first million.
Flightmapping:
Agreed the helicopters, dc3, 6 electra's etc are all very noisy, but as far as I know, are all operating legally out of building with palnning permission. If the airport ever offered to phase these out or reduce them in exchange for the tui flights, then they might find some residents groups interested in negotiation. But they have bever made this offer. The airports idea of mitigation is to set a night flight quota at around 50% to 100% higher than the current level. Some mitigation that. not.
Also I agree that those who have bought he newly built houses in baginton in the last year are hardly in a position to complain about flights. But they are rightly entitled to expect companies to follow planning procedure, and not to operate outwith planning legislation.