Coventry Airport unauthorised development (told you so)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry Airport unauthorised development (told you so)
According to a Warwick District Council Press release:
The independent Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), has confirmed that the Temporary Terminal at Coventry Airport is an unauthorised development.
The Inspectorate has issued a formal direction to the airport that planning permission is required for this facility. It does not have planning permission at present and no application has been submitted. He also requires the Airport to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment on the effect of the terminal within three months.
This decision is a complete vindication of the Council’s position that the development of the Temporary Terminal required planning permission and that the undertaking of enforcement action was appropriate.
The Planning Application for the main terminal remains under consideration. Contrary to allegations from the Airport, and at the specific request of the current airport manager, submission of the application to the Planning Committee was deferred for further information to be submitted by the airport. That information has not yet been fully submitted. As soon as it is received the necessary consultation will be carried out with a view to reporting to the Planning Committee as soon as possible.
Councillor Bill Evans, Chairman of the Planning Committee said:” I am very pleased that we now have independent confirmation that the Council was right to conclude that the temporary terminal was likely to have a significant environmental impact and that planning permission was required. Enforcement action is in place and we will continue to work to secure a satisfactory resolution of this issue”
The independent Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), has confirmed that the Temporary Terminal at Coventry Airport is an unauthorised development.
The Inspectorate has issued a formal direction to the airport that planning permission is required for this facility. It does not have planning permission at present and no application has been submitted. He also requires the Airport to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment on the effect of the terminal within three months.
This decision is a complete vindication of the Council’s position that the development of the Temporary Terminal required planning permission and that the undertaking of enforcement action was appropriate.
The Planning Application for the main terminal remains under consideration. Contrary to allegations from the Airport, and at the specific request of the current airport manager, submission of the application to the Planning Committee was deferred for further information to be submitted by the airport. That information has not yet been fully submitted. As soon as it is received the necessary consultation will be carried out with a view to reporting to the Planning Committee as soon as possible.
Councillor Bill Evans, Chairman of the Planning Committee said:” I am very pleased that we now have independent confirmation that the Council was right to conclude that the temporary terminal was likely to have a significant environmental impact and that planning permission was required. Enforcement action is in place and we will continue to work to secure a satisfactory resolution of this issue”
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boring?
Well, if you think that the deputy prime minister's office telling one of the largest travel groups in europe that they have built and operated a passenger terminal without planning permission is boring then please dont read the threads further.
Personally, I expect further fireworks. It certainly is a drama.
Well, if you think that the deputy prime minister's office telling one of the largest travel groups in europe that they have built and operated a passenger terminal without planning permission is boring then please dont read the threads further.
Personally, I expect further fireworks. It certainly is a drama.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Whereever they will send a pay cheque
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Coventry Council needs to have their collective heads examined.
Why make it hard for a huge multi-national company to invest millions of pounds in your community!!!
Its an airport, has been for a long time, aeroplanes fly into airports, and they make noise. You wouldn't be able to hear the noise over the sound of all those TUI £'s being shoved into local business's tills if you just let them get on with it.
Granted there are correct procedures for planning/building, but its happened, why not just stand back and let them throw money at you?
I would love to know what the people who elected this council really think about its actions.
How much of this is a council bleating about its bruised ego, and how much is a council looking after the best interests of its electorate.
As for you 2 stroke, " I told you so " , get a life. If you get your way TUI will just go and set up shop somewhere else. IMHO the people who will lose the most if that happens are the people of Coventry.
This ego driven, money wasting , myopic council makes me :yuk
Why make it hard for a huge multi-national company to invest millions of pounds in your community!!!
Its an airport, has been for a long time, aeroplanes fly into airports, and they make noise. You wouldn't be able to hear the noise over the sound of all those TUI £'s being shoved into local business's tills if you just let them get on with it.
Granted there are correct procedures for planning/building, but its happened, why not just stand back and let them throw money at you?
I would love to know what the people who elected this council really think about its actions.
How much of this is a council bleating about its bruised ego, and how much is a council looking after the best interests of its electorate.
As for you 2 stroke, " I told you so " , get a life. If you get your way TUI will just go and set up shop somewhere else. IMHO the people who will lose the most if that happens are the people of Coventry.
This ego driven, money wasting , myopic council makes me :yuk
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prescott orders new airport survey Jul 9 2004
EXCLUSIVE by Simon Dudman
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has stepped in to the Coventry Airport row.
He says that expansion of the airport is likely to have "signifi-cant" effects on the environment, particularly to nearby Baginton.
In a letter to airport bosses Mr Prescott, in his role as secretary of state for planning, has spelled out numerous concerns about the airport's temporary passenger terminal.
And he has ordered a detailed environmental survey to be carried out. It is not clear whether the results of the survey could have an impact on future planning permission.
TUI started operating low-cost flights in March after purchasing the Baginton airport and introducing new airline Thomsonfly.com.
Mr Prescott has said that whether the terminal has breached the planning guideline or not, which has been the focus of the row between the airport and Warwick District Council, the development is having a detrimental impact because of its "nature, size and location".
The letter says: "The increased number of aircraft is in itself significant compared with the previous size of operations at the airport.
"As to road traffic, it is noted that the amount of increase, and its distribution between the alternative routes to the airport and different parts of it, are disputed between your client (the airport) and the Council.
However it is considered that the increase in traffic through Baginton village in particular would have a significant environmental effect.
"This is because all those using the new terminal who wish to park at the airport have to travel through the village to reach the car park, and then travel by bus back through the village to reach the terminal."
The letter goes on to say that the increased traffic through Baginton is likely to have "a significant effect on amenity for the residents of that village, because of noise and general disturbance."
It concludes that the development "is likely to have significant environmental effects."
Campaigners opposing expansion of the airport have welcomed his letter.
Lia Border said: "It was already clear to the local community that the temporary terminal building, and the associated Thomsonfly programme, were having a detrimental environmental effect. It was good to have this confirmed by the Secretary of State.
"Warwick District Council should now be considering how best to take early and effective enforcement action against TUI."
John Archer, head of planning at Warwick District Council, said: "What this means is the Secretary of State has completely vindicated the council's position that the temporary terminal was an unauthorised development and is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and we are pleased with that has been recognised."
Airport managing director Bill Savage has said he remains confident there will be no disruption to operations.
Mr Savage said: "We welcome the clarification of the next steps of this drawn-out planning saga. We are more than happy to comply with the Planning Inspectorate's request as we have already issued a full ES for up to two million passengers per year that accompanied our March 2003 Planning Application.
"Our only concerns are that Warwick District Council are continuing to waste taxpayers' money and that they still have not considered our full planning application for a new permanent terminal building and car parks that was submitted to them in March 2003, over 15 months ago."
Former chairman of Warwick District Council's planning committee Cllr Bernard Kirton (Ind Whitnash) said: "It does not matter if you are Joe Bloggs putting up a conservatory or a major company like this, everyone should be treated the same.
"And it is quite right there should be a full environmental assessment."
EXCLUSIVE by Simon Dudman
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has stepped in to the Coventry Airport row.
He says that expansion of the airport is likely to have "signifi-cant" effects on the environment, particularly to nearby Baginton.
In a letter to airport bosses Mr Prescott, in his role as secretary of state for planning, has spelled out numerous concerns about the airport's temporary passenger terminal.
And he has ordered a detailed environmental survey to be carried out. It is not clear whether the results of the survey could have an impact on future planning permission.
TUI started operating low-cost flights in March after purchasing the Baginton airport and introducing new airline Thomsonfly.com.
Mr Prescott has said that whether the terminal has breached the planning guideline or not, which has been the focus of the row between the airport and Warwick District Council, the development is having a detrimental impact because of its "nature, size and location".
The letter says: "The increased number of aircraft is in itself significant compared with the previous size of operations at the airport.
"As to road traffic, it is noted that the amount of increase, and its distribution between the alternative routes to the airport and different parts of it, are disputed between your client (the airport) and the Council.
However it is considered that the increase in traffic through Baginton village in particular would have a significant environmental effect.
"This is because all those using the new terminal who wish to park at the airport have to travel through the village to reach the car park, and then travel by bus back through the village to reach the terminal."
The letter goes on to say that the increased traffic through Baginton is likely to have "a significant effect on amenity for the residents of that village, because of noise and general disturbance."
It concludes that the development "is likely to have significant environmental effects."
Campaigners opposing expansion of the airport have welcomed his letter.
Lia Border said: "It was already clear to the local community that the temporary terminal building, and the associated Thomsonfly programme, were having a detrimental environmental effect. It was good to have this confirmed by the Secretary of State.
"Warwick District Council should now be considering how best to take early and effective enforcement action against TUI."
John Archer, head of planning at Warwick District Council, said: "What this means is the Secretary of State has completely vindicated the council's position that the temporary terminal was an unauthorised development and is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and we are pleased with that has been recognised."
Airport managing director Bill Savage has said he remains confident there will be no disruption to operations.
Mr Savage said: "We welcome the clarification of the next steps of this drawn-out planning saga. We are more than happy to comply with the Planning Inspectorate's request as we have already issued a full ES for up to two million passengers per year that accompanied our March 2003 Planning Application.
"Our only concerns are that Warwick District Council are continuing to waste taxpayers' money and that they still have not considered our full planning application for a new permanent terminal building and car parks that was submitted to them in March 2003, over 15 months ago."
Former chairman of Warwick District Council's planning committee Cllr Bernard Kirton (Ind Whitnash) said: "It does not matter if you are Joe Bloggs putting up a conservatory or a major company like this, everyone should be treated the same.
"And it is quite right there should be a full environmental assessment."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bundy bear-
Its Warwick District Council actually, not Coventry City council.
And its Cov Airport themselves who appealed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. And its ODPM who have now confirmed what WDC have said all along, 'you need to apply for planning permission'.
Its not that difficult; everyone else has to do it. So what makes Cov Airport so special then that they are exempt from planning regulations?
'Ego-driven myopic council'? Have you any idea what you are talking about, since you dont even know which council you are talking about, never mind who made the decisions?
'Get a life' - !
Its Warwick District Council actually, not Coventry City council.
And its Cov Airport themselves who appealed to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. And its ODPM who have now confirmed what WDC have said all along, 'you need to apply for planning permission'.
Its not that difficult; everyone else has to do it. So what makes Cov Airport so special then that they are exempt from planning regulations?
'Ego-driven myopic council'? Have you any idea what you are talking about, since you dont even know which council you are talking about, never mind who made the decisions?
'Get a life' - !
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst Bill S. may be the M.O.L of the airport world, if anyone can pull Coventry through this sorry saga, it'll be him that does it.
I've seen him handle the stroppiest and most beligerant ego's in politics and he usually comes up smelling of roses.
I've seen him handle the stroppiest and most beligerant ego's in politics and he usually comes up smelling of roses.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So prescots mob are complaining about the amount of traffic through Baginton village, simple solution give permission for the car parks to be built at the terminal which is what tui have wanted all along.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LEICESTER
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
COVENTRY AIRPORT
So Bundybear has seen the balance sheet? Personally, I can't see TUI's self-loading cargo's exports of Sterling, taking shed-loads of Euros out of the country to the Costa Majolica, being anywhere near balanced by inward income generated for the benefit of the region's GDP or UKplc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
daysleeper-
They have to apply for planning permission for it to be granted. And the terminal has no planning permission so why would they grant permission for a carpark?
If WDC have the balls, the stop notice will now be served on the portacabins, pending planning application , environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. They are taking 'legal advice'
Looks like thompson may be needing those reserve slots at BHX.
They have to apply for planning permission for it to be granted. And the terminal has no planning permission so why would they grant permission for a carpark?
If WDC have the balls, the stop notice will now be served on the portacabins, pending planning application , environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. They are taking 'legal advice'
Looks like thompson may be needing those reserve slots at BHX.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Warwickshire
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke, you and your CEACA mates have got it wrong yet again.
Coventry Airport Press Statement - 9th July 2004
Coventry Airport has now received confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate of the next stages in the planning process regarding passenger terminal developments. The airport has been asked to submit and Environmental Statement (ES) regarding the Interim Passenger Facilities. This means that Coventry Airport is not required to submit any new planning applications and any suggestions to the contrary are unnecessarily misleading.
The Local Planning Authority, Warwick District Council, were recently defeated in their High Court attempt to have the IPF taken out of operation. They then applied to have the Planning Inspectorate consider whether the construction of the IPF has breached any planning procedures. The Airport asked the Planning Inspectorate to consider whether a further Environmental Statement (ES) was required for them to consider. The Planning Inspectorate has now confirmed they wish to receive a further ES.
Commenting on the issue, the airport’s managing director, Bill Savage, said, “We welcome the clarification of the next steps of this drawn out planning saga. We are more than happy to comply with the Planning Inspectorate’s request as we have already issued a full ES for up to 2 million passengers per year that accompanied our March 2003 Planning Application.
“Coventry Airport continues to operate as normal and we are extremely confident that the recent High Court judgement shows there is no threat to our uninterrupted operations. Our only concerns are that Warwick District Council are continuing to waste taxpayers’ money and that they still have not considered our full planning application for a new permanent terminal building and car parks that was submitted to them in March 2003, over 15 months ago. We call upon them to determine this application without further delay and to stop wasting taxpayers’ money.
Coventry Airport Press Statement - 9th July 2004
Coventry Airport has now received confirmation from the Planning Inspectorate of the next stages in the planning process regarding passenger terminal developments. The airport has been asked to submit and Environmental Statement (ES) regarding the Interim Passenger Facilities. This means that Coventry Airport is not required to submit any new planning applications and any suggestions to the contrary are unnecessarily misleading.
The Local Planning Authority, Warwick District Council, were recently defeated in their High Court attempt to have the IPF taken out of operation. They then applied to have the Planning Inspectorate consider whether the construction of the IPF has breached any planning procedures. The Airport asked the Planning Inspectorate to consider whether a further Environmental Statement (ES) was required for them to consider. The Planning Inspectorate has now confirmed they wish to receive a further ES.
Commenting on the issue, the airport’s managing director, Bill Savage, said, “We welcome the clarification of the next steps of this drawn out planning saga. We are more than happy to comply with the Planning Inspectorate’s request as we have already issued a full ES for up to 2 million passengers per year that accompanied our March 2003 Planning Application.
“Coventry Airport continues to operate as normal and we are extremely confident that the recent High Court judgement shows there is no threat to our uninterrupted operations. Our only concerns are that Warwick District Council are continuing to waste taxpayers’ money and that they still have not considered our full planning application for a new permanent terminal building and car parks that was submitted to them in March 2003, over 15 months ago. We call upon them to determine this application without further delay and to stop wasting taxpayers’ money.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
warkman
We will have to differ on this. Personally I believe very little of what comes out of Bill Savages mouth.
It is a matter of fact that if a development requires an ES it is not 'permitted development'. The planning inspectorate themselves called it 'unauthorised development'.
Its up to wdc whether they wish to take on thomson again and serve the stop notice, but if they do - there is no right of appeal!
I say sit back and watch the fireworks
We will have to differ on this. Personally I believe very little of what comes out of Bill Savages mouth.
It is a matter of fact that if a development requires an ES it is not 'permitted development'. The planning inspectorate themselves called it 'unauthorised development'.
Its up to wdc whether they wish to take on thomson again and serve the stop notice, but if they do - there is no right of appeal!
I say sit back and watch the fireworks
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Leicester
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warkman
I have not kept up to date with these latest goings on and am totally lost, for my sanity please can you explain what happens now.
Will Coventry Airport now be putting in a full planning application for the current facility or are they just putting in an EIA?
What about the current application for a main terminal. Has Coventry Airport now officially called for this to be decided re:your above quote (calling on the Council to determine this application without delay)?
Does this mean there will be more than one application in to the council?
Will all of this have to go out for consultation again?
Does this mean the airport are home and dry?
Thanks for your patience.
TH
I have not kept up to date with these latest goings on and am totally lost, for my sanity please can you explain what happens now.
Will Coventry Airport now be putting in a full planning application for the current facility or are they just putting in an EIA?
What about the current application for a main terminal. Has Coventry Airport now officially called for this to be decided re:your above quote (calling on the Council to determine this application without delay)?
Does this mean there will be more than one application in to the council?
Will all of this have to go out for consultation again?
Does this mean the airport are home and dry?
Thanks for your patience.
TH
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opponents of Coventry Airport's growth offered to demolish its Thomsonfly terminal on Wednesday after the government ruled it is an unauthorised development.
Members of the Campaign Against Expansion at Coventry Airport donned hard hats, dust masks and reflective clothing as they waited for Warwick District Council to give them the go-ahead to knock the building down.
The call never came, but that did not stop the activists feeling they had made their frustrations with the planning process clear.
Campaign spokesman Archy Muir said: "Following the Secretary of State's recent decision, things are now very clear.
"The district council's position on the temporary terminal building was correct all along. The building requires planning permission, the airport erected the building without applying for planning permission and enforcement action should be taken against the airport.
"It all seems very straightforward, so why is the district council not taking robust action to stop Thomsonfly using the building?
"The demonstration was not a swipe at the district council. Our protest is against the way the national planning and legal systems seem to work. The district council has meticulously detailed the airport's serious planning breaches, but the legal and planning systems seem designed to kick problems into the long grass."
But airport spokeswoman Kimberley Kay was disappointed with the campaigners' actions. She said: "The demonstration's aim seems to have been to get get media attention rather than to work with the airport. It's a bit misguided when their efforts would be better spent more constructively."
The airport's managers maintain they have acted in full compliance with planning regulations.
Members of the Campaign Against Expansion at Coventry Airport donned hard hats, dust masks and reflective clothing as they waited for Warwick District Council to give them the go-ahead to knock the building down.
The call never came, but that did not stop the activists feeling they had made their frustrations with the planning process clear.
Campaign spokesman Archy Muir said: "Following the Secretary of State's recent decision, things are now very clear.
"The district council's position on the temporary terminal building was correct all along. The building requires planning permission, the airport erected the building without applying for planning permission and enforcement action should be taken against the airport.
"It all seems very straightforward, so why is the district council not taking robust action to stop Thomsonfly using the building?
"The demonstration was not a swipe at the district council. Our protest is against the way the national planning and legal systems seem to work. The district council has meticulously detailed the airport's serious planning breaches, but the legal and planning systems seem designed to kick problems into the long grass."
But airport spokeswoman Kimberley Kay was disappointed with the campaigners' actions. She said: "The demonstration's aim seems to have been to get get media attention rather than to work with the airport. It's a bit misguided when their efforts would be better spent more constructively."
The airport's managers maintain they have acted in full compliance with planning regulations.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had it confirmed to me today that Cov Airport have appealed the enforcement notice on grounds (a) that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the enforcement notice. This is known as a 'deemed' planning application and is like a retrospective planning application. The airport have to pay the normal planning application fee.
