Coventry Terminal Application refused (merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry Terminal Application refused
It will probably come as no surprise to learn that Warwick District Council have today (yes, great choice of date) rejected Coventry Airport's application for a permanent passenger terminal on multiple grounds (exact details to follow).
What was perhaps surprising is that although the motion was carried by 7 votes, but there was actually one vote against.
What was perhaps surprising is that although the motion was carried by 7 votes, but there was actually one vote against.
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely suprising, given the total ignorance of the small minded cretins who sit on the council commtiees in Warkckshire.
Having previously worked for the chap (Bill Savage) who I beleive is now Euoropean director for Thompson, , and directly responsible for CVT, this won't be the end of the matter.
I am sure he will appeal and win in the end, cos that what he excells at, failing which, TUI will pull out from CVT entirely, and that will be the end of CVT as a regional airport.
Having previously worked for the chap (Bill Savage) who I beleive is now Euoropean director for Thompson, , and directly responsible for CVT, this won't be the end of the matter.
I am sure he will appeal and win in the end, cos that what he excells at, failing which, TUI will pull out from CVT entirely, and that will be the end of CVT as a regional airport.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears the only thing that prevented the planning officers supporting the application was the Highways Agency issue with the road access through the roundabout. So not a bad result really 
On to the next round.
On to the next round.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you would have thought that the best idea would have been for WDC to just defer the decision until the airport had been able to offer extra information requested by the Highways Agency.
I cannot see the benefit of a complete rejection based on just one main objection, let's remember that the WDC deferred the meeting several times prior to Saturday, surely one more deferral would have been a more efficient result. However when did efficiency ever take a place in local govt.
Personally I think the crux is that the decision to reject was a purely political one as it has now effectively taken the planning decision out of WDC's hands, which is probably what they wanted all along. They can say to their local objectors - "we rejected it", but hopefully an external appeal process will see it get the go ahead, most probably after a drawn out public enquiry...and all this for a terminal with a floorspace of just 2% of Heathrow T5.
As to whether Thomsonfly are willing to wait for all this is another matter, let's hope they are as the passenger figures have certainly shown there is a good market for the flights from Coventry. If they aren't, then we will need to develop the night freight traffic, the local anti's don't know what is good for them.
BH
I cannot see the benefit of a complete rejection based on just one main objection, let's remember that the WDC deferred the meeting several times prior to Saturday, surely one more deferral would have been a more efficient result. However when did efficiency ever take a place in local govt.
Personally I think the crux is that the decision to reject was a purely political one as it has now effectively taken the planning decision out of WDC's hands, which is probably what they wanted all along. They can say to their local objectors - "we rejected it", but hopefully an external appeal process will see it get the go ahead, most probably after a drawn out public enquiry...and all this for a terminal with a floorspace of just 2% of Heathrow T5.
As to whether Thomsonfly are willing to wait for all this is another matter, let's hope they are as the passenger figures have certainly shown there is a good market for the flights from Coventry. If they aren't, then we will need to develop the night freight traffic, the local anti's don't know what is good for them.
BH
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
niknak daysleeper and behappy.
You appear to unaware of some facts, so let me enlighten you.
The Highways Agency's Direction to refuse on traffic grounds was just one of many grounds of rejection, including inadequacy of the mitigation package, effects on air quality, effects of noise on residents, effects on air quality. effects on local bird populations, and impact on landscape character and setting.
In all the planning committee cited 23 breaches of planning policy. Bill Savage now has his work cut out.
You appear to unaware of some facts, so let me enlighten you.
The Highways Agency's Direction to refuse on traffic grounds was just one of many grounds of rejection, including inadequacy of the mitigation package, effects on air quality, effects of noise on residents, effects on air quality. effects on local bird populations, and impact on landscape character and setting.
In all the planning committee cited 23 breaches of planning policy. Bill Savage now has his work cut out.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the planning officer's report, which stated the only reason for refusal was the directive from the Highways Agency who wanted more information.
The other issues twostroke mentioned were NOT given as reasons for refusal in the planning report.
The other issues twostroke mentioned were NOT given as reasons for refusal in the planning report.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbottle is right, the ONLY reason for the refusal was because of the directive from the Highways Agency, the same agency who are in the planning stages of spending millions on the upgrading of the A45/A46 junction otherwise known as Toll Bar roundabout.
Without going into to much detail, the upgrading of the above also includes better service roads for middlemarch Ind. Est. (where the proposed new terminal will be) and from the proposals I have at hand also indicates TWO seperate entrances instead of the existing one.......That should sort any minor traffic problems out
Regards Yorky
Highways Agency reference No. HA/001/018/000045
This is for the A45/A46 Toll Bar End improvements.
Without going into to much detail, the upgrading of the above also includes better service roads for middlemarch Ind. Est. (where the proposed new terminal will be) and from the proposals I have at hand also indicates TWO seperate entrances instead of the existing one.......That should sort any minor traffic problems out
Regards Yorky
Highways Agency reference No. HA/001/018/000045
This is for the A45/A46 Toll Bar End improvements.
I am at a loss to understand local Councils,NIMBYs etc.
I recently used the Thomsonfly service and was most impressed, but in addition to that i stayed at a local pub, ate and drank in another pub, used local taxis and spent fifteen pounds in the local shop in Baginton.Small amounts but all go to help the local economy.
I would certainly use Coventry again.
I recently used the Thomsonfly service and was most impressed, but in addition to that i stayed at a local pub, ate and drank in another pub, used local taxis and spent fifteen pounds in the local shop in Baginton.Small amounts but all go to help the local economy.
I would certainly use Coventry again.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Coventry, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" effects on air quality, effects of noise on residents, effects on air quality. effects on local bird populations, "
Lets look at the alternative. No terminal.... no thomsonfly. Coventry airport goes back to the roots and really starts hammering the night freight operations, increasing them big time. All of the grounds listed above will be affected far far worse by that, than anything thomsonfly and their 737s do. And WDC can do diddly squat about that.
"and impact on landscape character and setting"
its in the middle of an industrial estate?!
Lets look at the alternative. No terminal.... no thomsonfly. Coventry airport goes back to the roots and really starts hammering the night freight operations, increasing them big time. All of the grounds listed above will be affected far far worse by that, than anything thomsonfly and their 737s do. And WDC can do diddly squat about that.
"and impact on landscape character and setting"
its in the middle of an industrial estate?!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbottle, Yorky etc.
Not only are you ignorant of the facts, but you persist in being ignorant, by recycling your tired old arguments. The application was refused on five major grounds as well as the Highways Agency's direction, citing 23 breaches of planning policy.
I'm sure theres a report on the internet somewhere if you bother looking...
try here
Not only are you ignorant of the facts, but you persist in being ignorant, by recycling your tired old arguments. The application was refused on five major grounds as well as the Highways Agency's direction, citing 23 breaches of planning policy.
I'm sure theres a report on the internet somewhere if you bother looking...
try here
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Warwickshire
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke,
Yes, I see you are still spinning the comments for CEACA, very good.
Yes, the Planning committee went against the Planning officers report that the reason to reject was direction by the HA. they added a lot of other spuriuos reasons, which had been addressed in the Planning officers report. I take it (from what has been posted in other forums) that this is why the Chairman if the Committee voted AGAINST the recommendation to refuse?
The actual Planning officers report ONLY recommended refusal on one ground, not these added extras by the Councillors, who, only have rudimentary planning training (the subject is very complicated, which is why there are specialised law firms on Planning Law)
When it goes to appeal, these reasons will be thrown out as they go against the Planning officers comments, in fact, one of tyhe Councillors will probably have to defend the decision in the appeal, as they ignored the PO comments. (A planning officer cannot defend a contary decison to there recommendation)
Should be an interesting appeal......
Yes, I see you are still spinning the comments for CEACA, very good.
Yes, the Planning committee went against the Planning officers report that the reason to reject was direction by the HA. they added a lot of other spuriuos reasons, which had been addressed in the Planning officers report. I take it (from what has been posted in other forums) that this is why the Chairman if the Committee voted AGAINST the recommendation to refuse?
The actual Planning officers report ONLY recommended refusal on one ground, not these added extras by the Councillors, who, only have rudimentary planning training (the subject is very complicated, which is why there are specialised law firms on Planning Law)
When it goes to appeal, these reasons will be thrown out as they go against the Planning officers comments, in fact, one of tyhe Councillors will probably have to defend the decision in the appeal, as they ignored the PO comments. (A planning officer cannot defend a contary decison to there recommendation)
Should be an interesting appeal......
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone got any figures about how much a Public Enquiry on this sort of scale can cost the local council involved?
When you total up that and how much the WDC have already spent on this case, the WDC taxpayers may not be too happy!
BH
When you total up that and how much the WDC have already spent on this case, the WDC taxpayers may not be too happy!
BH
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, you place too much faith in local councillors - what gives them the knowledge to virtually ignore the report by their own planners and invent spurious reasons like Birdstrikes (Which the report states may well be less of an issue due to the cut in low level training flights!).
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not 100% sure but I believe that CVT is one of the least restricted airports in the UK ( operational hours, etc).
The only way the locals can restrict the operation is by fighting hard to prevent infrastructure improvements, like this.
The only way the locals can restrict the operation is by fighting hard to prevent infrastructure improvements, like this.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be Happy,
I believe figures are available on the planning office website. WDC may have to pay costs and it could take a long, long time.
As someone has said, the council have virtually ignored the advice of their planners (Who produced their document based on the advice of lawyers and legal teams) and in cases like this decisions are usually overturned.
It's just delaying the inevitable.
I believe figures are available on the planning office website. WDC may have to pay costs and it could take a long, long time.
As someone has said, the council have virtually ignored the advice of their planners (Who produced their document based on the advice of lawyers and legal teams) and in cases like this decisions are usually overturned.
It's just delaying the inevitable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alterego,
"The only way the locals can restrict the operation is by fighting hard to prevent infrastructure improvements, like this."
Not really. Having a planning application gives them the opportunity to implement a Section 106 agreement with some serious restrictions on night flights and future growth, which they would not get by fighting to continue the status quo. The airport have already increased the scope of the S106 - for example night flights have a cap of 4000 "points", reduced from 7500. If you listened to the speeches on Saturday, it was pretty obvious that all the locals wanted was the airport totally shut down - they were not interested in any sort of compromise. Now it goes to the planning inspectorate, their opportunity to place the restrictions you talked about has been seriously reduced.
JA
"The only way the locals can restrict the operation is by fighting hard to prevent infrastructure improvements, like this."
Not really. Having a planning application gives them the opportunity to implement a Section 106 agreement with some serious restrictions on night flights and future growth, which they would not get by fighting to continue the status quo. The airport have already increased the scope of the S106 - for example night flights have a cap of 4000 "points", reduced from 7500. If you listened to the speeches on Saturday, it was pretty obvious that all the locals wanted was the airport totally shut down - they were not interested in any sort of compromise. Now it goes to the planning inspectorate, their opportunity to place the restrictions you talked about has been seriously reduced.
JA
Last edited by jabird; 13th Sep 2004 at 21:04.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Coventry, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Coventry Evening Telegraph tonight talks of the descision etc etc.. and does report that the airport has stated it is willing to enter talks concerning regardong a Section 106 agreement to cap night flights, also talks of an initial cap of 2million passsengers a year.
Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this debacle is the fact that the planning permission has been there before, just lapsed.
Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this debacle is the fact that the planning permission has been there before, just lapsed.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 106 Agreement was part of the planning permission. The council were advised in the report to accept it. I also believe the 2 million cap was also part of the submission.
From what I've heard the inquiry will be next Feb; outcome expected in Autumn. So CAECA have another year of waiting!
From what I've heard the inquiry will be next Feb; outcome expected in Autumn. So CAECA have another year of waiting!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JMC,
I think there is a difference between outline which doesn't specify passenger numbers (although presumably it would have been in any local searches of people buying property in the area), and a specific plan for 2m pax, with the reality of the TOM operation. It is certainly strange that the protests have been so late in getting off the ground - after all, they were very quiet through the White Paper period, which talked of upto 9m pax at Coventry - they were obviously too busy thinking about the phantom diversion of Rugby.
Arbottle,
I can see some clever electioneering coming into play here. Coventry Airport is not a big issue in the city it serves - there is broad support, and a small amount of opposition. Go out into the middle class semi-rural dormitory communities (let's not confuse them with the countryside), and opposition is fierce. The two constituencies of Rugby/ Kenilworth and Leamington / Warwick are "natural" Conservative voting areas, who kicked out the incumbents in 1997.
Both sitting Labour MPs have been able to take enourmous credit for "slaying the dragon" of Rugby Airport, and have been resolutely against Coventry. If it was to be approved before the election, people would start to question how their MPs were unable to "stand up" to national government and "big business", and will suddenly realise how they were conned all along by the Rugby diversion.
Instead, both MPs will now stand as heroes as the election approaches, will be able to regain their seats with a comfortable margin, and will have 4 more years to "recover" from the "blow" of when permission is finally granted for the terminal this time next year.
I think there is a difference between outline which doesn't specify passenger numbers (although presumably it would have been in any local searches of people buying property in the area), and a specific plan for 2m pax, with the reality of the TOM operation. It is certainly strange that the protests have been so late in getting off the ground - after all, they were very quiet through the White Paper period, which talked of upto 9m pax at Coventry - they were obviously too busy thinking about the phantom diversion of Rugby.
Arbottle,
I can see some clever electioneering coming into play here. Coventry Airport is not a big issue in the city it serves - there is broad support, and a small amount of opposition. Go out into the middle class semi-rural dormitory communities (let's not confuse them with the countryside), and opposition is fierce. The two constituencies of Rugby/ Kenilworth and Leamington / Warwick are "natural" Conservative voting areas, who kicked out the incumbents in 1997.
Both sitting Labour MPs have been able to take enourmous credit for "slaying the dragon" of Rugby Airport, and have been resolutely against Coventry. If it was to be approved before the election, people would start to question how their MPs were unable to "stand up" to national government and "big business", and will suddenly realise how they were conned all along by the Rugby diversion.
Instead, both MPs will now stand as heroes as the election approaches, will be able to regain their seats with a comfortable margin, and will have 4 more years to "recover" from the "blow" of when permission is finally granted for the terminal this time next year.