Time to get behind CVT

[Skypartners]

A triumph for the airport and our industry. Lame attempts by a small minority to ground the legitimate operation of Thomsonfly from Coventry have been quashed by the High Court.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds flushed away by a council on a mission - maybe a suicide run, but still a mission.

But the real balls-ache for me? Enduring months of slagging off here from people who were so sure the council would win, were so sure the airline would crash and burn before launch, were so sure the operation would be tinpot and yet - here we are - with highly satisfied customers, the law on our side and a functional proposition for our industry despite some huge obstacles being placed in our path.

Stop the bleating and bar stool prophecy - get behind CVT because, with the Tui pound behind them, they just did something big and good for aviation.

[Localiser Green]

The critics had their say, but I don't believe for a second TUI and Britannia didn't know what they were doing with this project.

Skypartners makes an excellent point that new aviation ventures such as this should be welcomed by the aviation community after 2 or 3 years of tough market conditions, yet they all to often recieve vitification from PPRuNe members.

Time to get behind TUI/Thomsonfly and CVT once and for all.

[Captain Capstan]

.
Makes interesting reading. It would be interesting to know how much local taxpayers money was wasted on this "abuse of legal proceedings"
Coventry Airport announced today that it has won its High Court case against Warwick District Council. Mrs Justice Gloster gave her judgment following a two day High Court hearing and ordered that the injunction proceedings brought by Warwick District Council regarding the Airport's use of its Interim Passenger Facilities be struck out.
Mrs Justice Gloster ruled that there would be no reasonable prospect of a court granting an injunction and further ruled that the action taken by Warwick District Council amounted to an abuse of legal proceedings.
Speaking after the High Court Judgment, Coventry Airport's Managing Director, Bill Savage said, "We are delighted that the High Court has thrown out Mr Archer's claims. We have stated all along that we wish to work with the Local Planning Authority, but Mr Archer has sought to take action that frustrated every attempt we tried to make. His action has undoubtedly cost the tax payers of Warwick District Council hundreds of thousands of pounds and I feel sorry for those tax payers that will inevitably face higher bills."
”Throughout this legal case Coventry Airport has assured us that the Interim Passenger facility was within planning regulations,” said Alex Hunter, Chief Commercial Officer, Thomsonfly.com “ The ruling this morning has vindicated the airport and we’re delighted that this now gives us a clear and long term future from Coventry Airport. Today’s news will give our present and future customers the confidence to book with us and take advantage of our low fare flights from their local airport

[BE happy]

Latest estimates say that it will cost the Warwick District Council i.e. the taxpayers

£400,000

Not including the millions if TUI decide to sue them for loss of earnings whilst this shambles has been going on.

[Localiser Green]

Warwick DC will have to recoup this expense from 53,356 households with residents (2001 Census) which means a council tax rise of around £7.50 per household...

[colegate]

I am delighted that TUI have won. I am sure that they will operate a safe an popular airline there and that it will bring great benefits to the local community.

[Flightmapping]

I'll second that, Skypartners

Localiser Green, I've heard it quoted as 1% for each £50k, which would mean an 8% rise; this is something to do with the way central government make the rules. Could someone clarify the exact amount it is likely to rise by?

Yes despite being utterley humiliated, WDC have not given up yet, and there will be a public enquiry in November. How much will this cost - another £200k?

As for CAECA (Can't Actually Engage in Credible Argument), their representative at yesterday's consultation meeting made a very sharp exit after many of the attendees criticised them for their alarmist and extremist anti-airport stance.

She had the gall to claim that they supported the airport, but just wanted expansion stopped. A bit like saying "I support Coventry City, but don't want them to go back to the Premier League".

Airport: \'Now we\'ll sue\' May 26 2004




By Simon Dudman


Coventry Airport bosses have vowed to pursue a multi-million pound compensation claim against Warwick District Council following their High Court victory yesterday.

The airport is looking at a lawsuit “as a matter of urgency” and will also be after huge legal costs.

The district council yesterday failed in its bid to stop low cost airline Thomsonfly using a temporary passenger terminal at Baginton.

The airport claims taxpayers could be forced to pay £400,000 in legal costs, but Warwick District Council disputes this figure.

The High Court ruled that the council’s application for an injunction was an “abuse” of the court process and struck out the action.

The authority has argued planning permission was needed for the terminal - a claim refuted by the airport.

Bill Savage, managing director of Coventry Airport, who was delighted with yesterday’s court win, said: “This legal action has been a phenomenal waste of public money.

“I would be amazed if council tax payers are not urgently asking questions as to who is going to pay the £400,000 legal costs that Mrs Justice Gloster awarded against the council to the airport.

“This action has opened the door for a multi-million pound lawsuit and we will be taking urgent legal advice in seeking damages against the council.” The airport claims the row has hit its business hard.

However a spokesman for Warwick District Council last night rubbished Mr Savage’s figure of £400,000 and said it did not expect to pay “anywhere near” that figure.

The authority declined to reveal where the money would come from.

The planning issues will now go before a public inquiry.

[Localiser Green]

Not 100% sure how it works. Can't be 1% for every £50k I don't think - the weighted average council tax in Warwick DC is £1,190 per household so a 1% rise across all tax bands would generate about another £635,000 per annum.

Are you sure it wasn't £1 per £50k? That would add up better.

Perhaps someone who knows more about how council tax works could provide a more accurate estimate of the real rate rise people will experience?

[twostroke]

Sorry to put a dampner on your party but the high court judgment was nothing to do with the alleged planning infringements at coventry airport, or whether planning permission will be granted.

The high court ruling was that it was inappropriate for the action to have been taken in the high court.

Warwick District Council enforcement orders requiring the cessation of activities in the temporary terminal still stand and will come into force at the start of June. My understanding is that the airport will appeal against those notices, and that will then force a Public Inquiry later in the year.

It seems Coventry airport have won themselves a stay of execution

[Flightmapping]

"It seems Coventry airport have won themselves a stay of execution"

Twostroke, the judge's verdict was much more damning than that, combined with the fact that the airport may now sue.

The planning officer from WDC who dared to turn up at the consultation meeting last night admitted they did not want to (or accepted that they could not) close the terminal.

The anti-airport brigade have gone very quiet since this court case, and since the local press have started challenging their arguments. CAECA are clearly not capable of standing up to any scrutiny, as their representative made such a sharp exit from yesterday's meeting. They know that most of their arguments have been proven to be lies, or at best gross distortions of minor issues.

WDC should cut their losses and start to work with the airport. They have lost the moral and now the legal argument. It would be suicidal of them to lose any more money on this.

[Skypartners]

and may I add ...

Twostroke - who are you? A disgruntled former employee? Part of the management team at BHX? I'd love to know. For as clear as the evidence is that this airport will not be closed or denied it's right to develop the passenger terminal it was 'promised' you are absolutely unswerving, in your desire for Coventry's failure. Your motives must be explained because, frankly, no-one can genuinely be THAT cynical.

[Standard Noise]

I must admit, I have no love for the present owners of the airport, but then I had no love for Cov City Council when they owned it either, but as an ex Cov ATCO, I still have friends who depend on the place for their livelihood and I'm glad to see it's beating the NIMBY's and starting to move forward. Go for it guys!

[Flightmapping]

"Ain't no stopping us now"

Brilliant "Ain't no stopping us now" advert full page in today's Cov Observer.

I'm sure this one will provoke more angry outbursts from Raving Ron & co.

[Buster the Bear]

Airport campaigners to fight on May 27 2004


By Simon Dudman


Campaigners protesting against expansion at Coventry Airport have said their fight is far from over and are now pinning their hopes on separate enforcement action following this week's High Court ruling.

Airport bosses have vowed to pursue a multi-million pound compensation claim against Warwick District Council after successfully getting the authority’s case for an injunction on its temporary passenger terminal thrown out of court.

It is thought the council could now have to pay the airport’s £400,000 legal costs.

The Campaign Against the Expansion of Coventry Airport, the group opposing the introduction of low-cost flights at the Baginton-based site, have welcomed a public inquiry later this year.

The planning enforcement notices require the airport to cease using the terminal building and its sub-sequent removal. The airport owners have until June 3 to appeal against the notices which were served on May 7 and it is likely that they will do so.

Lia Border, CAECA spokesman, said: “We need to get things into perspective. Thomsonfly and the airport seem to believe that they have been vindicated. That is not the case. The enforcement orders are still in place.

“This matter will now be resolved at a public inquiry, when local people will have the opportunity to voice their concerns and have them addressed.”

Council spokesman Richard Brooker said: “The enforcement notices still remain in place. They are not affected by the outcome of the court decision. These notices also require the cessation of the operation of the interim passenger facility and its full removal.”

Airport managing director Bill Savage said of the enforcement action: “The council can pursue their Ruritanical foolhardiness but we welcome an independent planning inspector looking at the case.”

[warkman]

QUOTE/ Not 100% sure how it works. Can't be 1% for every £50k I don't think - the weighted average council tax in Warwick DC is £1,190 per household so a 1% rise across all tax bands would generate about another £635,000 per annum.

Are you sure it wasn't £1 per £50k? That would add up better.

Perhaps someone who knows more about how council tax works could provide a more accurate estimate of the real rate rise people will experience?
/QUOTE

The £1,190 per hopusehold I would take it is total council tax, i.e. Parish Tax, District Tax, County tax and Fire/Police tax.

I have checkd my figures with my accounts department (I am in a local authority near to WDC in a district council of the same size)

The figures are worked out as follows (WDC will be slightly different as their Band D (The level used as thye base for all CT figures) I think, are the highest in the County)

A 1% increase in tax will bring in £52,349 i.e. £52,000 for round numbers. The figure is calculated by looking at the total amount we are intending to collect from Council Tax for the council this year and taking 1%.
The problem is that residents (perfectly reasonably) don't see things in isolation. So their property may well not be a Band D to start with, and then there are the parish precept, WCC and Police elements as well.
It's the parish/town element which can really skew things. For example, in Parish 1 it is £100.76 - just under the District councils figure figure; whereas in Parish 2 it is £29.55p, which is just below the average parish/town precept of £34.85p.

So, yes, 1% is approx £50,000, but possibly a little more in Warwick without the actual figures for WDC on its own, without parish/town, counnty police etc elements I can only guess. but as they are the same size in terms of population, its is a rough guide and close enough.


Hope that helps.

[twostroke]

Well, you guys convince yourselves of whatever you want, the facts are that the airport portacabins are still subject to enforcement notices, but it seems that the planning authority will have to take the long route round to getting resolution of the issues, ie via a local inquiry, which will all take ages (sept/oct I believe).


.....Bill Savage said " .....we welcome an independent planning inspector looking at the case....." What a load of cr@p. He has been arguing for months that he believes the portacabins are permitted development and thus circumvent the planning process. If he wanted a planning inspector look at the case, Cov Airport could have actually applied for planning permission for the portacabins and the proposals judged on their own merits, but that would be a bit simple wouldnt it?

Flightmapping-

My sources tell me that you need to learn a lesson or two in how to behave at a consultation forum. The whole point is that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and allowed to express it in a non intimidatory forum. Heckling of people whose views do not align with your own is no way to behave in such a forum. You did yourself no favours by acting unprofessionally, and gave the people airing their concerns further reason to have gripes.

'WDC should work with the airport' - well if CA bothered applying for planning permission, that would indeed give them the mechanism to engage with them.

"Ain't no stopping us now" - Is this an example of Thomsonfly's sensitive community relations policy? As you point out, it is likely to be highly inflammatory comment, that will just wind certain people up.



Warkman et al- I am told WDC have a budget for legal actions etc, and this will draw on that fund. Hence no council tax rises expected. Sorry to spoil your fun.

[warkman]

Twostroke,

exactly how much money is available? have you any idea?
If it is to come from "reserves" are you aware that those reserves will then not be available to either keep the council tax down, by using the reserves, or will make other projects unavailable as those reserves have been wasted on this spurious case?
No Council has a huge pot of money just sitting there waiting for such cases to appear. It has to be taken from another project OR replaced by an increase in Council tax. remember, this is the council who have as I recall ( I stand to be corrected is anyone else has better information) had to close town toilets to save money

You have I think deliberatly misunderstood Bill savages comments. He is happy as I would be, for a Planning Inspector to investigate as this I belive will show the terminal IS within permitted development rights.
Nothing you have said has explained how it is outside the Permitted development rights. In fact WDC did not even go to the airport and measure according to Coventry Airport.
have you actually been up to the terminal?
If so, explain to everyone what the terminal is surrounded by and what you pass to get to it!

As for your comments about Flightmapping, I feel they are naughty "someone who i talked to said" COME ON! inference without evidence.
If you have accusations, detail tem and the source they came from, or please apologise to Flihtmapping for the unsustainable accusation

[Flightmapping]

Pots and black kettles (due to soot from TOM's engines of course)

Twostroke,

You weren't there, so I don't think you can comment. I certainly wasn't the only one heckling, but I don't deny that I did.

However, this was all very minor, compared to:

The way no pro-airport people were allowed to finish their questions at the WDC meeting earlier in the year. One person was even slow handclapped.
The way I was forcibly removed when I turned up to challenge CAECA at their demo.

For Lia Border to state in the Courier that she didn't like the tone of the consultation meeting is very rich indeed. CVT's plans for passenger flights were well known long before the TOM announcement - why else did they seek planning permission for a passenger terminal? The fact is that this meeting contained a large number of stakeholders - general aviation, employees who work at the airport, villagers on both sides of the argument, environmental groups, transport companies, hotels etc. It was actually a very representative sample. If that meant it contained only a small number of antis, that would be proportional to the general populace.

Remember, CAECA have spread lie after lie after lie. This was perhaps the second time they have been challenged in public, and I think Lia got off very lightly. She certainly made a very sharp exit. I cannot read her mind, but I would say that the fact that most of CAECA's arguments have now been crushed had something to do with it.

If I sometimes get heated when talking about Coventry Airport, then that is only because I have heard so much b******t being talked by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

On aviation in general, I would consider myself a fairly moderate person - see some of my other posts, or my response to the white paper. I'm not the Richard Harding type who would want to concrete over everywhere.

But there has been such a loud protest over this airport, from such a small group of people, that those of us who are in favour have had to fight fire with fire.

[gobfa]

Twostroke

you quote "If he wanted a planning inspector look at the case, Cov Airport could have actually applied for planning permission for the portacabins and the proposals judged on their own merits, but that would be a bit simple wouldnt it?"

Would you apply when WDC have been sitting on an application for over a year for a permanent solution ?

Wasn't this application submitted before Thomsonfly announced their plans to operate from CVT ?

The modular building was erected under permitted development rights, note the word "permitted"

As for the £400k to CVT along with similar costs from the WDC legal team, this is now in the hands of the electorate to make those responsible for the action accountable.

[Arbottle]

DOn't get excited, TwoStroke. The inquiry will be looking into breaches of planning permission, and the airport have said they will rectify any breaches. The inspector is going to be independent, which means WDC seem to have been frozen out of the process. The judge _did_ state that it would be difficult to prove any breaches took place.

This is all just delaying tactics - we really want to see the proper terminal built.