Coventry Airport - Final Call for Action?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry Airport - Final Call for Action?
As next week's public enquiry approaches, levels of support for Coventry airport are growing rapidly.
It is, however, not too late to make your opinions known.
Whilst I know there are people on this board of all opinions, I think this inquiry could have implications for the whole industry, especially with regards to one local council's vicious assualt on permitted development rights. I know that even our friends in Birmingham are watching this point closely, and feel it is important that the silent majority are prepared to stand up to the screaming minority.
If you would like to comment, please email [email protected]. Please quote reference APP/T3725/C/04/1151759 and APP/T3725/C/04/1151760. The deadline for comments is February 1st 2005, however, comments may be accepted later at the discretion of the Inspector.
If you would like further details, please send me a PM.
Jabird
Coventry Airport Supporter (not connected with the airport or TUI)
It is, however, not too late to make your opinions known.
Whilst I know there are people on this board of all opinions, I think this inquiry could have implications for the whole industry, especially with regards to one local council's vicious assualt on permitted development rights. I know that even our friends in Birmingham are watching this point closely, and feel it is important that the silent majority are prepared to stand up to the screaming minority.
If you would like to comment, please email [email protected]. Please quote reference APP/T3725/C/04/1151759 and APP/T3725/C/04/1151760. The deadline for comments is February 1st 2005, however, comments may be accepted later at the discretion of the Inspector.
If you would like further details, please send me a PM.
Jabird
Coventry Airport Supporter (not connected with the airport or TUI)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like WDC are now requesting an adjournment, and that if this is granted, full proceedings will commence on 1st March.
Should have more information on this tomorrow.
Should have more information on this tomorrow.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice there was an European Aviation B737-200 into Coventry from Oslo at around 0100 this morning. I wonder how many complaints (from people woken from their sleep) this non-scheduled movement produced. After all, the B732 is far noiser than anything TUI operate from Coventry.
Fried Chicken
Fried Chicken
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retreat horns sounding
FC,
Will be very interesting to see. What is the relative noise footprint of a 737-200, compared to a -500? There must be a factor of 4 difference?
It also looks like Raving Ron has sounded the retreat for CAECA, according to his quote in tonight's CET:
"CAECA is not opposed to holiday flights from the airport"
Compared to their website's stated aim of:
"To stop ThomsonFly, or any other airline, from running scheduled or chartered passenger flights"
Unless of course all those SLF were not to be self loading after all?
Will be very interesting to see. What is the relative noise footprint of a 737-200, compared to a -500? There must be a factor of 4 difference?
It also looks like Raving Ron has sounded the retreat for CAECA, according to his quote in tonight's CET:
"CAECA is not opposed to holiday flights from the airport"
Compared to their website's stated aim of:
"To stop ThomsonFly, or any other airline, from running scheduled or chartered passenger flights"
Unless of course all those SLF were not to be self loading after all?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TUI / CVT offer to cut Pax to less then 1M - Sounds like they are not looking forward to the enquiry outcome.
From CET:
Airport offers to cut passenger numbers Feb 2 2005
Coventry Airport offered to slash passenger numbers to less than a million a year in an eleventh hour deal with the planning authority yesterday.
Airport bosses tabled the offer, which also included tighter noise and air pollution controls, just before a month-long public inquiry began in Leamington.
Warwick District Council asked the inquiry team from the government's Planning Inspectorate to halt the debate for two weeks so planners could have a detailed look at the last minute proposals.
But planning inspectors Ian Currie and Neil Roberts refused and the inquiry will continue as planned.
The main aims of the 32-day meeting are to determine whether the Baginton-based airport's temporary terminal was built legally and, if not, whether it should be given planning permission.
Representatives for the airport and Warwick District Council opened their case with detailed statements about the history of the long-running wrangle.
Ten other parties with interests in the inquiry, including Coventry City Council, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, the Highways Agency and community groups, will have their chance to speak today.
In an opening statement, Peter Village QC, for the airport, said the district council's planners had issued "invalid and null" enforcement notices and what they did was "inap-propriate", "perverse" and "wrong".
He added: "Whatever the council or the small minority of people may think, it does not have control over operations at the airport.
"It is a sad indictment of the council that the members have failed to recognise the real benefits the development will bring."
Jeremy Cahill QC, for the council, said the airport's last minute proposals were light on detail and offered too late to be properly considered.
He added: "If planning permission is granted for the unauthorised development that has taken place at the airport, it will have a lasting impact on the lives of the local population."
From CET:
Airport offers to cut passenger numbers Feb 2 2005
Coventry Airport offered to slash passenger numbers to less than a million a year in an eleventh hour deal with the planning authority yesterday.
Airport bosses tabled the offer, which also included tighter noise and air pollution controls, just before a month-long public inquiry began in Leamington.
Warwick District Council asked the inquiry team from the government's Planning Inspectorate to halt the debate for two weeks so planners could have a detailed look at the last minute proposals.
But planning inspectors Ian Currie and Neil Roberts refused and the inquiry will continue as planned.
The main aims of the 32-day meeting are to determine whether the Baginton-based airport's temporary terminal was built legally and, if not, whether it should be given planning permission.
Representatives for the airport and Warwick District Council opened their case with detailed statements about the history of the long-running wrangle.
Ten other parties with interests in the inquiry, including Coventry City Council, Warwickshire Wildlife Trust, the Highways Agency and community groups, will have their chance to speak today.
In an opening statement, Peter Village QC, for the airport, said the district council's planners had issued "invalid and null" enforcement notices and what they did was "inap-propriate", "perverse" and "wrong".
He added: "Whatever the council or the small minority of people may think, it does not have control over operations at the airport.
"It is a sad indictment of the council that the members have failed to recognise the real benefits the development will bring."
Jeremy Cahill QC, for the council, said the airport's last minute proposals were light on detail and offered too late to be properly considered.
He added: "If planning permission is granted for the unauthorised development that has taken place at the airport, it will have a lasting impact on the lives of the local population."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke - please see private message.
Charles Web - not at all, this is a Section 106, which would be quite standard in many situations. It only refers to the IPF. The long term plans for the main terminal remain at 2m passengers per year.
Yet again, local papers have mis-reported the issue - although the Birmingham Post is perhaps the worst offender right now. There is no "cut" in passengers, merely a cap.
Charles Web - not at all, this is a Section 106, which would be quite standard in many situations. It only refers to the IPF. The long term plans for the main terminal remain at 2m passengers per year.
Yet again, local papers have mis-reported the issue - although the Birmingham Post is perhaps the worst offender right now. There is no "cut" in passengers, merely a cap.
