When do TUI'S 735's Arrive At Coventry?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it:
a) The Airport had long standing planning permission for a passenger terminal on Siskin Drive. This had been renewed but was not renewed due to the airport's plan to put forward a detailed application.
b) It's in the county's transport policy as being the regional centre for air transport, and the policy also sets aside land for passenger purposes.
c) Warwick DC seem to have refused to speak to the airport -- and they Bodged the original planning application by not including a scoping report until AFTER the airport had produced its EIA.
d) The Airport had a passenger terminal at the Baginton side of the airport -- this was demolished as part of a long standing agreement over the construction of a new passenger terminal.
e) The assessment of Toll Bar end roundabout *does* take into account increasing passenger numbers at the airport.
f) The Council seemed unable to actually do their research and dismiss the lies the campaigners were spreading.
g) The White Paper actually *supports* the development of Coventry.
This is a mess that is probably going to get messier; and in the meantime, the chances of a proper terminal for the airport seem to be a distant event.
a) The Airport had long standing planning permission for a passenger terminal on Siskin Drive. This had been renewed but was not renewed due to the airport's plan to put forward a detailed application.
b) It's in the county's transport policy as being the regional centre for air transport, and the policy also sets aside land for passenger purposes.
c) Warwick DC seem to have refused to speak to the airport -- and they Bodged the original planning application by not including a scoping report until AFTER the airport had produced its EIA.
d) The Airport had a passenger terminal at the Baginton side of the airport -- this was demolished as part of a long standing agreement over the construction of a new passenger terminal.
e) The assessment of Toll Bar end roundabout *does* take into account increasing passenger numbers at the airport.
f) The Council seemed unable to actually do their research and dismiss the lies the campaigners were spreading.
g) The White Paper actually *supports* the development of Coventry.
This is a mess that is probably going to get messier; and in the meantime, the chances of a proper terminal for the airport seem to be a distant event.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally went to take a look at the terminal yesterday. What a monstrosity. Hope they get a proper building up as soon as possible, but it seems quite bizarre to be making such a fuss about a stack of Portakabins.
CVT were given no choice but to operate in this way, because the council have sat on the planning application for so long.
"Environment" maybe the number one issue, but it is still ironic that these protests are focusing on a the relatively quiet parts of the airport operations. The helicopters make much more noise, as do the Dc3's & Electras and they are all based on the Baginton side of the runway.
I was on my bike, and noticed the pollution around Tolbar Island far more than anything coming out of the airport.
None of the other operations directly benefit any of the villagers, unless they work at the airport, or enjoy watching the planes.
The passenger flights will give them an opportunity to benefit from having the airport so close by (they could even have free access to the terminal using the shuttle bus).
It is often been argued that people know the airport is there when choosing to move. There are some houses which have been constructed in the last year or so, yet they are still displaying anti-flights posters. Surely these are the biggest nimbys of them all?
CVT were given no choice but to operate in this way, because the council have sat on the planning application for so long.
"Environment" maybe the number one issue, but it is still ironic that these protests are focusing on a the relatively quiet parts of the airport operations. The helicopters make much more noise, as do the Dc3's & Electras and they are all based on the Baginton side of the runway.
I was on my bike, and noticed the pollution around Tolbar Island far more than anything coming out of the airport.
None of the other operations directly benefit any of the villagers, unless they work at the airport, or enjoy watching the planes.
The passenger flights will give them an opportunity to benefit from having the airport so close by (they could even have free access to the terminal using the shuttle bus).
It is often been argued that people know the airport is there when choosing to move. There are some houses which have been constructed in the last year or so, yet they are still displaying anti-flights posters. Surely these are the biggest nimbys of them all?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pollution !!
Flightmapping,
" I was on my bike the other day and noticed the pollution at Toll bar roundabout"
Ye I agree, but have you noticed when one of the modern Tui 73's passes over on landing or departure how it sucks all the pollution away giving us all in the area a "breath of fresh air"!!!!
Regards
Yorky
" I was on my bike the other day and noticed the pollution at Toll bar roundabout"
Ye I agree, but have you noticed when one of the modern Tui 73's passes over on landing or departure how it sucks all the pollution away giving us all in the area a "breath of fresh air"!!!!
Regards
Yorky
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Warwickshire
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of interesting items in the local paper (Leamington Courier)
1) The Office of Fair Trading announced that the sale of the airport will NOT be investigate, after the Anti-Airport gang complained to OFT. OFT states that TUI do not hold a buisness monopoly which was more than 25% than other airline companies in the UK
Craig Greenway, spokesman for the anti airport gang said he was dissapointed the investigation was not getting the go-ahead. He said "we have to stand by what the OFT claims and don't want to attack it. We have to go down every avenue. We` are confident we will succeed and are currently researching other avenues"
Kimberly Kay Marketing Director of Coiventryu Airport said "we are pleased that the OFT has decided not to investigate. we are not surprised at the decision"
2) Coventry City Council has offered the airport use of land for car parking. Councillor Mutton said "we support the airport because of the new jobs it is creating but we want it done sensitivitely to minimise impact"
That should put an end to the car parking debate
1) The Office of Fair Trading announced that the sale of the airport will NOT be investigate, after the Anti-Airport gang complained to OFT. OFT states that TUI do not hold a buisness monopoly which was more than 25% than other airline companies in the UK
Craig Greenway, spokesman for the anti airport gang said he was dissapointed the investigation was not getting the go-ahead. He said "we have to stand by what the OFT claims and don't want to attack it. We have to go down every avenue. We` are confident we will succeed and are currently researching other avenues"
Kimberly Kay Marketing Director of Coiventryu Airport said "we are pleased that the OFT has decided not to investigate. we are not surprised at the decision"
2) Coventry City Council has offered the airport use of land for car parking. Councillor Mutton said "we support the airport because of the new jobs it is creating but we want it done sensitivitely to minimise impact"
That should put an end to the car parking debate
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke !
Your wrong on most counts however, bored now, so goin' for a breath of fresh air.....
............and the 2nd million!!!!
............and the 2nd million!!!!
Last edited by Yorky Towers; 17th Apr 2004 at 10:27.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when a 'green' travel plan is in place
Agreed, a big own goal by TUI.
There should have been a bus to Pool Meadow & Cov station to meet all flights from the start.
Why do the parking shuttle buses need to run every 10 minutes. Surely, they only need to run from perhaps 2 hours before departure to 30 mins after arrival? The rest of the time, could they not just instal a "request bus" telephone link?
Installation cost = Ł16.99 (Ł6.99 for the phone + 1 x Ł10/hour to install)
Fuel & traffic saving over lifetime of car park = Ł000's
Agreed, a big own goal by TUI.
There should have been a bus to Pool Meadow & Cov station to meet all flights from the start.
Why do the parking shuttle buses need to run every 10 minutes. Surely, they only need to run from perhaps 2 hours before departure to 30 mins after arrival? The rest of the time, could they not just instal a "request bus" telephone link?
Installation cost = Ł16.99 (Ł6.99 for the phone + 1 x Ł10/hour to install)
Fuel & traffic saving over lifetime of car park = Ł000's
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwoStroke
Could you tell me where in the published White Paper it says that Coventry's development 'is a matter for local determination', I had a quick look today at http://www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/white...main/chap9.htm
and couldn't find anything?
Is it in another document?
Thanks
Andy
Could you tell me where in the published White Paper it says that Coventry's development 'is a matter for local determination', I had a quick look today at http://www.dft.gov.uk/aviation/white...main/chap9.htm
and couldn't find anything?
Is it in another document?
Thanks
Andy
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as747
The quote is from the summary document:
The Midlands
The Government does not support the option of a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.
We support a second runway at Birmingham International Airport. We prefer the wide-spaced option, but with the new runway limited to 2,000m and with other improvements as proposed in the airport operator’s ‘Birmingham Alternative’. Development should be subject to stringent limits on noise, which should be kept under review.
We believe that the projected expansion of passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands Airport should be permitted, but only with strict controls on night noise. We do not support a second runway or safeguarding of land for one, but will keep this under review.
The development of Coventry Airport, Wolverhampton Business Airport and any civil use of RAF Cosford are matters for local determination
summary doc
The quote is from the summary document:
The Midlands
The Government does not support the option of a new airport between Coventry and Rugby.
We support a second runway at Birmingham International Airport. We prefer the wide-spaced option, but with the new runway limited to 2,000m and with other improvements as proposed in the airport operator’s ‘Birmingham Alternative’. Development should be subject to stringent limits on noise, which should be kept under review.
We believe that the projected expansion of passenger and freight traffic at East Midlands Airport should be permitted, but only with strict controls on night noise. We do not support a second runway or safeguarding of land for one, but will keep this under review.
The development of Coventry Airport, Wolverhampton Business Airport and any civil use of RAF Cosford are matters for local determination
summary doc
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Planning for airports "should" follow the section in the white paper that details the results of the government plan. (Can't recall the section).
That section acknowledges that there is a planning application for 2m passengers PA from Coventry, and "does not envisage" further development beyond this number. It also states that the plans are for local determination.
Local MPs have consistently (I've read Hansard) tried to get across the same old rubbish about runway/safety/etc in Parliament, but the goverment refer them to this section of the paper, and repeat the mantra "for local determination." As it is clear the safety issues were a pack of lies, and the section of the paper acknowledges the development of a terminal, then WDC have no reason to turn down development based on this section -- which _would_ be the case for Wolverhampton & cosgrove.
In effect, the development of the Terminal is not constrained by the white paper, and cannot be used to stop its development.
I think it's about time the airport was put to better use. I live in the flight paths of both Coventry and Brum and get planes flying overhead all day & sometimes in the early hours [These ones I assume are the noisy freight planes?] I fully support more use -- I only hope that Cov CIty council and TUI can get their heads together and start some decent transport links.
That section acknowledges that there is a planning application for 2m passengers PA from Coventry, and "does not envisage" further development beyond this number. It also states that the plans are for local determination.
Local MPs have consistently (I've read Hansard) tried to get across the same old rubbish about runway/safety/etc in Parliament, but the goverment refer them to this section of the paper, and repeat the mantra "for local determination." As it is clear the safety issues were a pack of lies, and the section of the paper acknowledges the development of a terminal, then WDC have no reason to turn down development based on this section -- which _would_ be the case for Wolverhampton & cosgrove.
In effect, the development of the Terminal is not constrained by the white paper, and cannot be used to stop its development.
I think it's about time the airport was put to better use. I live in the flight paths of both Coventry and Brum and get planes flying overhead all day & sometimes in the early hours [These ones I assume are the noisy freight planes?] I fully support more use -- I only hope that Cov CIty council and TUI can get their heads together and start some decent transport links.
Thread Starter
What, so where have the 737's gone to?! Are the 146's a permenant plan?! Any idea what time it arrives at tonight?
I'll be down the airfield in the next couple of weeks Jon.
Many Thanks
Dan
I'll be down the airfield in the next couple of weeks Jon.
Many Thanks
Dan
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It arrives at 21:00 (9pm) It's hired in from Flightline to help cover the new flights that start Thu to Nice, Palma and Marseille.
The 3rd B737-500 is still not ready for service.....
Cya soon DB,
Jon
The 3rd B737-500 is still not ready for service.....
Cya soon DB,
Jon
Thread Starter
Oh right i see and are the pilots from TUI or flightline - you got any pics of the aircraft?
I wonder how long it is going to be for the 3rd 735 to arrive - i had a feeling time would beat them on receiving the third aircraft in time for the new routes.
Many Thanks
Dan
I wonder how long it is going to be for the 3rd 735 to arrive - i had a feeling time would beat them on receiving the third aircraft in time for the new routes.
Many Thanks
Dan
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts