COVENTRY

[cvt person]

That of course is an opinion but as such no more valid than any alternative opinion.
I would agree that the inspector and the secretaries of state rejected the argument put forward by the Birmingham camp that development at Coventry would cause airspace conjestion that would restrict their own capacity for growth. To quote from the decision letter ' they consider no overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management' and ' having regard to airspace capacity the proposed development would not conflict with national or regional policies which aim to develop and expand Birmingham Airport as the West Midlands principal airport'
However there were other arguments that eminated from Birmingham that were accepted. To quote once again' The secretaries of state agree with the inspector that there is an alternative airport ( Birmingham) only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations.' 'They have had regard to the fact that if the appeal is dismised virtually all the services would be readily available a relatively short distance away. On that basis they agree with the inspector that on the face of it there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development.' ' the secretaries of state agree with the inspector that in this particular case the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration.'
Then there was the complementary argument, once again to quote from the decision letter ' The secretaries of state have also had regard to the extent to which Coventry is complimentary to Birmingham.' ' They agree with the inspector that for Coventry Airport to be complementary to Birmingham Airport it should add to or make complete what is available at Birmingham Airport. They agree that passenger services at Coventry would largely duplicate services which are already provided at Birmingham and that passenger growth at Coventry would also to some extent constrain the growth of cargo where Coventry has an important niche in the market.
To turn to the rumour circulating around Coventry at no point did I say that it intimated that Coventry would object to Birmingham's master plan or even to a planning application for the runway extension I said they might put in a submission to the committee considering the planning application for a runway extension requesting a section 106 agreement when permision was granted. Neither did I say that this section 106 could divert current dedicated freight services or the current level of executive services to Coventry but might seek to cap such services at Birmingham at their current level. The argument would be that if Coventry cannot develop its passenger services because it should fill a complimentary role to Birmingham by developing its freight and executive services as outlined in the white paper then similarly Birmingham should not develop its dedicated freight and executive services but concentrate on passenger services to fulfill a complimentary role to Coventry. Basically its what is good for the goose could be good for the gander!