Coventry Terminal Application refused (merged)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right, it's not a big issue in Coventry itself -- I still meet people who didn't even know there was an airport in the city! A lot of people think Thomsonfly is the airport "starting flights" or "opening up" (I've heard both these!) Having said that, some people in Coventry are up to ten miles away from the airport, so it's virtually like talking about something in a different town.
The outline planning permission is just a statement that "planning permission will be granted" for something of a given size, but without any details (Which still have to go through to get planning proper permisson, but it's very difficult to turn something down that has outline permission)
As someone said at the planning meeting, this permisson existed for over ten years, and formed part of the local transport policy - so what has changed (Also forms part of global policy, which is the conclusion that the WDC planning department's conclusion in their report.)? Thomsonfly aren't going to stop flying, not will anything else for that matter (Despite Ron Ravenhall's rant that they should close now.)
The outline planning permission is just a statement that "planning permission will be granted" for something of a given size, but without any details (Which still have to go through to get planning proper permisson, but it's very difficult to turn something down that has outline permission)
As someone said at the planning meeting, this permisson existed for over ten years, and formed part of the local transport policy - so what has changed (Also forms part of global policy, which is the conclusion that the WDC planning department's conclusion in their report.)? Thomsonfly aren't going to stop flying, not will anything else for that matter (Despite Ron Ravenhall's rant that they should close now.)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just been reading through all the comments on this subject - had to say something!
The term NIMBY is both childish & insulting and is generalising everyone who has any objection to aviation changes.
Yes, before you say anything, I do object to the further expansion of Coventry Airport. I feel I have good reason. However, I do also accept that there will always be other people who don't share my opinion, and I respect their right to voice their opinions - but I don't feel the need to make up insulting anecdotal names for them.
I know the vast majority of you work in or for the aviation industry and your support for expansion is therefore understandable - I do enjoy reading the many different threads but please don't get too insulting, and try to understand our point of view too (we're not all "fundamentalists" - just ordinary working class Joe Bloggs voicing our opinion).
Thanks for reading
CCFC
The term NIMBY is both childish & insulting and is generalising everyone who has any objection to aviation changes.
Yes, before you say anything, I do object to the further expansion of Coventry Airport. I feel I have good reason. However, I do also accept that there will always be other people who don't share my opinion, and I respect their right to voice their opinions - but I don't feel the need to make up insulting anecdotal names for them.
I know the vast majority of you work in or for the aviation industry and your support for expansion is therefore understandable - I do enjoy reading the many different threads but please don't get too insulting, and try to understand our point of view too (we're not all "fundamentalists" - just ordinary working class Joe Bloggs voicing our opinion).
Thanks for reading
CCFC
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCFC
Even as an outsider to the area, it is very clear that the councillors who represent you and other Warwickshire/Coventry residents have done you a dis - service by handling the whole matter in such a cack handed and amateurish way - this can only go against them in any planning appeal, and it almost certainly will.
Given this, it's hardly suprising that the occasional "euphonism"
is thrown in.
However, you've taken the time to make a constructive comment on the issue, so it would be interesting to hear what you objections are.
I would hope that supporters of the CVT expansion can find it within themselves to listen and make an equally constructive response.
Even as an outsider to the area, it is very clear that the councillors who represent you and other Warwickshire/Coventry residents have done you a dis - service by handling the whole matter in such a cack handed and amateurish way - this can only go against them in any planning appeal, and it almost certainly will.
Given this, it's hardly suprising that the occasional "euphonism"
is thrown in.
However, you've taken the time to make a constructive comment on the issue, so it would be interesting to hear what you objections are.
I would hope that supporters of the CVT expansion can find it within themselves to listen and make an equally constructive response.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCFC,
I make no apology for using the term "NIMBY" to describe the majority of anti Coventry airport protesters, because that is exactly what they are.
NIMBY stands for "not in my backyard", and refers quite clearly to anyone who objects to a development solely because it is happening in their neighbourhood, and without taking into account the wider issues.
Throughout this campaign the chant has been "we don't want Coventry airport because Birmingham is just down the road".
Birmingham airport has a much wider noise footprint than Coventry (the 57 decibel zone is measured in the tens of thousands rather than hundreds), therefore operating these flights from Birmingham would have much more negative impacts than operating from Coventry.
If you have a different reason for your objections, then please state them, and I'm sure we would be happy to give our view.
If your objections are to the wider growth in aviation nationally, there have been plenty of other threads on this forum discussing this, and I personally have always stated that some growth can be constrained by increased taxation on aviation. However this is an entirely separate issue to the planning dispute at Coventry airport, and is one for national and European government, not the amateurs at Warwick district Council.
I make no apology for using the term "NIMBY" to describe the majority of anti Coventry airport protesters, because that is exactly what they are.
NIMBY stands for "not in my backyard", and refers quite clearly to anyone who objects to a development solely because it is happening in their neighbourhood, and without taking into account the wider issues.
Throughout this campaign the chant has been "we don't want Coventry airport because Birmingham is just down the road".
Birmingham airport has a much wider noise footprint than Coventry (the 57 decibel zone is measured in the tens of thousands rather than hundreds), therefore operating these flights from Birmingham would have much more negative impacts than operating from Coventry.
If you have a different reason for your objections, then please state them, and I'm sure we would be happy to give our view.
If your objections are to the wider growth in aviation nationally, there have been plenty of other threads on this forum discussing this, and I personally have always stated that some growth can be constrained by increased taxation on aviation. However this is an entirely separate issue to the planning dispute at Coventry airport, and is one for national and European government, not the amateurs at Warwick district Council.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest idiot reporting from local paper re: CVT
http://www.leamingtononline.co.uk/Vi...ticleID=858726
"Leamington resident is pleading for action to be taken to stop near misses around Coventry Airport.
Martyn Carter, of Valley Road, Radford Semele, claims he saw two planes come perilously close on September 19"
How can they make news stories from what the casual observer on the ground sees? Isn't it time we sent these idiots to airliners.net?
"Leamington resident is pleading for action to be taken to stop near misses around Coventry Airport.
Martyn Carter, of Valley Road, Radford Semele, claims he saw two planes come perilously close on September 19"
How can they make news stories from what the casual observer on the ground sees? Isn't it time we sent these idiots to airliners.net?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: belfast
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think that's bad - you ought to see what local press print about BHD
www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=560910
It never ceases to amaze me the rubbish that the media publish without checking the accuracy of their facts!
Quote: "Why can't the planes fly over the Titanic quarter where nobody lives" Well they could if BHD's runway was moved into the middle of Belfast Lough!
www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=560910
It never ceases to amaze me the rubbish that the media publish without checking the accuracy of their facts!
Quote: "Why can't the planes fly over the Titanic quarter where nobody lives" Well they could if BHD's runway was moved into the middle of Belfast Lough!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, amazing how people buy homes near airports and then expect peace and quiet?
"Severn Street residents will also tell him they are unable to enjoy their new homes, in the recently redeveloped area, because of the "frightening" impact of low-flying planes over their homes."
Is there a term for this - they are beyond "regular" nimbyism. Almost as bad as people moving to the country and then complaining about the noise of cows mooing (has been done!).
"Severn Street residents will also tell him they are unable to enjoy their new homes, in the recently redeveloped area, because of the "frightening" impact of low-flying planes over their homes."
Is there a term for this - they are beyond "regular" nimbyism. Almost as bad as people moving to the country and then complaining about the noise of cows mooing (has been done!).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCFC,
Whether you have personal objections is not relevant, as the application is decided based on planning law and regulations - something that the NIMBY brigade (And most people who object to any development) don't seem to understand.
Whether you think the pollution effects are too bad is not relevant if the levels fall within the national limits. Same goes for noise & other factors.
You can't object to a development simply because you want to - you have to valid reasons & evidence. Just saying "I don't want this development because Brum Airport is down the road" is not valid reason, especially as the white paper on aviation does indicate there is a need for more capacity and the 2nd runway at BHX is many years and many planning wrangles away.
In this case the HA threw the only spanner in the works and this seems to have been based upon a dubious change of mind after they initially had no objections.
Whether you have personal objections is not relevant, as the application is decided based on planning law and regulations - something that the NIMBY brigade (And most people who object to any development) don't seem to understand.
Whether you think the pollution effects are too bad is not relevant if the levels fall within the national limits. Same goes for noise & other factors.
You can't object to a development simply because you want to - you have to valid reasons & evidence. Just saying "I don't want this development because Brum Airport is down the road" is not valid reason, especially as the white paper on aviation does indicate there is a need for more capacity and the 2nd runway at BHX is many years and many planning wrangles away.
In this case the HA threw the only spanner in the works and this seems to have been based upon a dubious change of mind after they initially had no objections.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Leicester
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabird
Since The start of Thomsonfly operations, you are lucky to hear cows mooing in the countryside! The Coventry flight paths ironically affect some of the best conservation areas and countryside in Warwickshire. Recently a chap in Coventry was took to court for keeping a cockerel in his garden as inappropriate (the neighbours complained about the noise). Luckily a new home was found for the cockerel in the countyside. Is aircraft noise inappropriate in the countryside?
The philosophy of the majority on this site appears to be expand, expand, expand aviation everywhere, whatever the consequences. Dump On People Everywhere, whatever the cost.
I understand job fears, yet the addition of more carriers, more airlines (especially lo-cost) and cheap tickets only appears to give rise to more aviation job insecurity, lower wages and reduced employee benefits?
CCFC, I am sorry your courtesy appears wasted on most but niknac. Sadly the old school image of aviation, the professionalism and politeness once expected (and appreciated) appears to have long lapsed as indicated by many of the replies on this forum (especially if you have a difference of opinion).
Since The start of Thomsonfly operations, you are lucky to hear cows mooing in the countryside! The Coventry flight paths ironically affect some of the best conservation areas and countryside in Warwickshire. Recently a chap in Coventry was took to court for keeping a cockerel in his garden as inappropriate (the neighbours complained about the noise). Luckily a new home was found for the cockerel in the countyside. Is aircraft noise inappropriate in the countryside?
The philosophy of the majority on this site appears to be expand, expand, expand aviation everywhere, whatever the consequences. Dump On People Everywhere, whatever the cost.
I understand job fears, yet the addition of more carriers, more airlines (especially lo-cost) and cheap tickets only appears to give rise to more aviation job insecurity, lower wages and reduced employee benefits?
CCFC, I am sorry your courtesy appears wasted on most but niknac. Sadly the old school image of aviation, the professionalism and politeness once expected (and appreciated) appears to have long lapsed as indicated by many of the replies on this forum (especially if you have a difference of opinion).
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Warwickshire
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toma-hawk Quote "Since The start of Thomsonfly operations, you are lucky to hear cows mooing in the countryside!" End Quote
Now that is a little over the top isn't it? How many TUI flights are there in a day? How many per hour?
They are not flying every minute, in fact I have sat at the end of the runway and for 59 mins of the hour I was there, you could hear the birds singing very well, let alone the cows mooing!
It is comments like that which do your position no good you know.
Now that is a little over the top isn't it? How many TUI flights are there in a day? How many per hour?
They are not flying every minute, in fact I have sat at the end of the runway and for 59 mins of the hour I was there, you could hear the birds singing very well, let alone the cows mooing!
It is comments like that which do your position no good you know.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately this whole business is a complete shambles from start to finish.
The Anti-airport groups are definately guilty of NIMBY-ism, whilst the airport themselves seem to have botched the application from the start.
On the subject of NIMBY's, last time I was at BHX, I saw a large number of cars in the car park with anti-airport stickers in the window (not just Cov). Nice to see people acting on their principles....
The 73's are pretty quiet and non-polluting when compared to the Electra's, 748's, DC3's and DC 6's and yet the venom has been aimed squarely at the pax operations, is it because it is more visible?
Passenger operations at Cov can only be good for the local economy, look at the numbers employed their now compared to a couple of years ago.
CAEC have in my opinion shown themselves to be uninterested in any compromise or sensible solution and have rightly lost alot of support they may have had with wild claims and accusations. Trying to link Asthma directly to the introduction of the Thompson services for instance whilst having no provable evidence to support such a claim.
Nobody can doubt that aircraft noise is intrusive, one of the reasons I live no where near an airport, but this is a serious issue that needs sorting in a proper and adult manner, rather than the quite frankly embarrasing tub-thumping that has been seen so far.
The Anti-airport groups are definately guilty of NIMBY-ism, whilst the airport themselves seem to have botched the application from the start.
On the subject of NIMBY's, last time I was at BHX, I saw a large number of cars in the car park with anti-airport stickers in the window (not just Cov). Nice to see people acting on their principles....
The 73's are pretty quiet and non-polluting when compared to the Electra's, 748's, DC3's and DC 6's and yet the venom has been aimed squarely at the pax operations, is it because it is more visible?
Passenger operations at Cov can only be good for the local economy, look at the numbers employed their now compared to a couple of years ago.
CAEC have in my opinion shown themselves to be uninterested in any compromise or sensible solution and have rightly lost alot of support they may have had with wild claims and accusations. Trying to link Asthma directly to the introduction of the Thompson services for instance whilst having no provable evidence to support such a claim.
Nobody can doubt that aircraft noise is intrusive, one of the reasons I live no where near an airport, but this is a serious issue that needs sorting in a proper and adult manner, rather than the quite frankly embarrasing tub-thumping that has been seen so far.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the noise of a jet taking off is obtrusive, but the noise from Lockheed Electra's and DC 6's isn't then, how does that work?
Have lived and worked at Cov Airport, and IMHO it seems some people aren't looking beyond their neatly trimmed hedges at the real picture here.. lets face it Coventry is not exactly a word on everyones lips when talking about prospects and future development of ANY industry.
Have lived and worked at Cov Airport, and IMHO it seems some people aren't looking beyond their neatly trimmed hedges at the real picture here.. lets face it Coventry is not exactly a word on everyones lips when talking about prospects and future development of ANY industry.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Massey Ferguson and Jaguar. Two shining examples of Cov's prospects. No disrespect to the people of Cov, I have some good friends there, but it does need all the business it can get. Whilst the Jag thing will only result in real terms, the loss of a few hundred jobs, it is nevertheless a few hundred families who will be affected. And anyway, who wants a Jag with "Made in the USA" stamped on it????
As I said, having lived the CVT experience with a certain cargo airline, I am all for the tour operators to moving in and bringing jobs with them.
As I said, having lived the CVT experience with a certain cargo airline, I am all for the tour operators to moving in and bringing jobs with them.
