COVENTRY
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise in Bubbenhall
I say, screw em! Make as much noise as possible 'cos they had the opportunity of a quiet life but chose another path.
I wonder if I can retrofit a Merlin to ma ole jalopy?
I wonder if I can retrofit a Merlin to ma ole jalopy?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: cambridge
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say, screw em! Make as much noise as possible 'cos they had the opportunity of a quiet life but chose another path.
I'm sure you know it was a planning inspector, John Prescott and the high courts rather than residents of Bubbenhall, that scuppered the airport's expansion plans; that combined with some immensely inept and shortsighted management!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Leamington Spa
Age: 38
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coventry Airport has never made that much noise recently, the DC-3s and DC-6s are flying less and less. The 737s of Thomson and A-320 of Wizz never made that much noise really. Coventry Airport Management need to go back to the drawing board really, and work out how they will get out the mess they are in, and try and turn the airport round. This isnt going to be easy with Birmingham up the road, and lots of very well ran GA fields in the area (i.e) Leicester, Wellesbourne.
Maybe cutting the landing fees would work, rather than Atlantic flying to Wellesbourne for most of their circuit work!
Maybe cutting the landing fees would work, rather than Atlantic flying to Wellesbourne for most of their circuit work!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon me for breathing!
No, I don't need to rip up Yellow Pages to vent my aggression but thanks for the suggestion. I care not a tinkers cuss whether you think me professional or not and, as you can see, I am not afraid to declare my interest by using an easily identifiable screen name.
And, actually, it was the residents of Bubbenhall, amongst others, that started the whole shebang.
This was an airport with planning permission for a passenger terminal but no need to build one. Planning permission that was repeatedly renewed without objection suddenly, and mysteriously, became an issue when it actually looked like the project would go ahead. Everything pointed towards acceptable levels of development at Coventry and no-one peeped until it actually started to happen.
A flook of timing meant that the action group formed to counter the threat of a super airport at Rugby, who's need diminished when the project was shelved, merely moved focus of attention to Baginton.
No denying that, like all battles, significant cock-ups were made on all sides. A lot of swaggering and a lot of scare mongering. Neither side came out looking good.
But get real here - every Dudley Do Right Organisation in the land hijacked the ‘local opposition’ as did the main commercial competitor to Coventry and it is this that lead to such a protracted and technically complex set of proceedings.
I now wonder what measures the airport owners can take to salvage a business at Coventry? I wonder if, for instance, the resumption of night freight flights, possibly in older aircraft, will start a whole new round of complaint and how that will be treated should it go to a legislator?
On past form it would seem that CVT has no friends in high places and cannot expect fair treatment in its efforts to stay alive
And, actually, it was the residents of Bubbenhall, amongst others, that started the whole shebang.
This was an airport with planning permission for a passenger terminal but no need to build one. Planning permission that was repeatedly renewed without objection suddenly, and mysteriously, became an issue when it actually looked like the project would go ahead. Everything pointed towards acceptable levels of development at Coventry and no-one peeped until it actually started to happen.
A flook of timing meant that the action group formed to counter the threat of a super airport at Rugby, who's need diminished when the project was shelved, merely moved focus of attention to Baginton.
No denying that, like all battles, significant cock-ups were made on all sides. A lot of swaggering and a lot of scare mongering. Neither side came out looking good.
But get real here - every Dudley Do Right Organisation in the land hijacked the ‘local opposition’ as did the main commercial competitor to Coventry and it is this that lead to such a protracted and technically complex set of proceedings.
I now wonder what measures the airport owners can take to salvage a business at Coventry? I wonder if, for instance, the resumption of night freight flights, possibly in older aircraft, will start a whole new round of complaint and how that will be treated should it go to a legislator?
On past form it would seem that CVT has no friends in high places and cannot expect fair treatment in its efforts to stay alive
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skypartners
Totally agree. (Sorry about the fridges etc
)
Lawnmowerman: John Prescott actually agreed to the developement of the Terminal officially. It was not until he was replaced in his position by the WELL known Lady Politician JS who bowed down to local minority pressure.
As usual....NIMBY's, and in this case, mostly from Bubbenhall, (all 20 of them if that!) have destroyed in excess of about 200 jobs in connection with Coventry Airport recently.
Here we go............................Regards Yorky
)Lawnmowerman: John Prescott actually agreed to the developement of the Terminal officially. It was not until he was replaced in his position by the WELL known Lady Politician JS who bowed down to local minority pressure.
As usual....NIMBY's, and in this case, mostly from Bubbenhall, (all 20 of them if that!) have destroyed in excess of about 200 jobs in connection with Coventry Airport recently.
Here we go............................Regards Yorky
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A one airline airport could have carried on with a 1 million capacity terminal that they had permission for. Problem is that once that one airline legged it then it's a catastrophe. At other airports losing one airline is an inconvenience.
Pretending that it is actually well positioned didn't help. Hardly any public transport access.
Yes it was quaint and easy to pass through (One flight at a time usually helps in that). However, Commercially viable it was not.
Bad management at the end of the day saw the downfall of CVT. The people of Bubbenhall etc. had a perfectly legal right to oppose the planning application. How that protest was handled was up to the airport. They handled it badly, had no back up plan, put all their eggs in one basket.
As a result some good workers lost their jobs.
Pretending that it is actually well positioned didn't help. Hardly any public transport access.
Yes it was quaint and easy to pass through (One flight at a time usually helps in that). However, Commercially viable it was not.
Bad management at the end of the day saw the downfall of CVT. The people of Bubbenhall etc. had a perfectly legal right to oppose the planning application. How that protest was handled was up to the airport. They handled it badly, had no back up plan, put all their eggs in one basket.
As a result some good workers lost their jobs.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leofric, that is just the start of things!! According to one low cost airline magazine, the Electras are looking to be replaced with Boeing 737-300s, as they offer a similar 15 tonne capacity. The Electras are apparently getting expensive to maintain, although they are ful efficient. Apparently Atlantic have 6 Electras, so IF they are all replaced with 737-300s, then there could actually be more based 737s than ever before...oh, and without any Section 106 protection for the Bubbenhall residents.
Yorky Towers, start getting ready for the complaints again...
Not sure if you mean Jacqui Smith, when you refer to "Lady Politician JS", I thought it was Ruth Kelly and Douglas Alexander who were in charge of transport issues at the time, oh well shows my political nouse. Anyway, I think a mention should also go to Neil Roberts who carried out the report in to the 2 million passenger terminal, concluding that it should be turned down. When reading through the 186 page document the amount of times the IPF Section 106 agreement was referred to is interesting, and seeing as how there is all of about 2 paragraphs referring to a fall back position with the removal of the IPF does show some short-sightedness.
Yorky Towers, start getting ready for the complaints again...
Not sure if you mean Jacqui Smith, when you refer to "Lady Politician JS", I thought it was Ruth Kelly and Douglas Alexander who were in charge of transport issues at the time, oh well shows my political nouse. Anyway, I think a mention should also go to Neil Roberts who carried out the report in to the 2 million passenger terminal, concluding that it should be turned down. When reading through the 186 page document the amount of times the IPF Section 106 agreement was referred to is interesting, and seeing as how there is all of about 2 paragraphs referring to a fall back position with the removal of the IPF does show some short-sightedness.
Last edited by Upintheair1; 19th Dec 2008 at 08:01.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Missing the point?
Glad that the point I am making is not being totally lost here.
IF the airport survives without PAX flights it must mean an increase in noise and inconvenience for local residents - so I would expect a new round of protest and, I repeat, I wonder how that will be treated?
I am unclear if the concessions made by the airport box them in to not being able to revert to the previous manner of operation - did they, in fact, trade the rights without a guarantee of success with the application?
I am one of the realists who always felt this was a shaky deal from day one and tried to be the voice of reason (prophet of doom to some) who said that, even if they planning application had succeeded, the future of the airport was still questionable given that there are plenty of airports WITH nice pax terminals which can not make a living in the present climate.
I do feel, very strongly, that the reasons for refusing this development are fundamentally flawed - be it because of the disingenuous way in which history was ignored or the more sinister issue of commercial protection of BHX.
Feel free to shoot me down with a reasoned argument.
IF the airport survives without PAX flights it must mean an increase in noise and inconvenience for local residents - so I would expect a new round of protest and, I repeat, I wonder how that will be treated?
I am unclear if the concessions made by the airport box them in to not being able to revert to the previous manner of operation - did they, in fact, trade the rights without a guarantee of success with the application?
I am one of the realists who always felt this was a shaky deal from day one and tried to be the voice of reason (prophet of doom to some) who said that, even if they planning application had succeeded, the future of the airport was still questionable given that there are plenty of airports WITH nice pax terminals which can not make a living in the present climate.
I do feel, very strongly, that the reasons for refusing this development are fundamentally flawed - be it because of the disingenuous way in which history was ignored or the more sinister issue of commercial protection of BHX.
Feel free to shoot me down with a reasoned argument.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of your post has a bit of sense about it but you do ramble about who is to blame.
According to you, the planning application and process should be one sided. No one should have objected on any grounds even though it is their legal right to do so.
For your information BHX thought that CVT was going to get permission for the terminal. The BHX Management were surprised (Pleasantly maybe) that it was denied.
I realise that you lost more than some because of the fiasco, but, surely you must understand that the case against was decided to be stronger than the case for.
CVT is now doing what it should have done a while ago by the looks of it. Concentrate on Cargo. I doubt they will be allowed to grow unchecked ad infinitum as you suggest without restrictions but it is the only way they can keep going...
Good luck to them.
According to you, the planning application and process should be one sided. No one should have objected on any grounds even though it is their legal right to do so.
For your information BHX thought that CVT was going to get permission for the terminal. The BHX Management were surprised (Pleasantly maybe) that it was denied.
I realise that you lost more than some because of the fiasco, but, surely you must understand that the case against was decided to be stronger than the case for.
CVT is now doing what it should have done a while ago by the looks of it. Concentrate on Cargo. I doubt they will be allowed to grow unchecked ad infinitum as you suggest without restrictions but it is the only way they can keep going...
Good luck to them.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Warwick Uk
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be imagining this but didn't the local objectors to the passenger terminal say when extra freight flights were held up as an alternative that they didn't object to freight aircraft it was only those nasty passenger planes they had a problem with.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yorky Towers
Well Prescott certainly muddied the waters!
If I recall correctly, Coventry built the 'temporary" one million passenger terminal without planning permission and Warwickshire C.C said it had to come down. Prescott intervened, probably at the request of Bob Ainsworth the Coventry Labour MP, and ruled that Warwick C.C were absolutely correct the Terminal was illegal, but then said the Terminal could stay anyway - which was a typical Prescott action.
Everything that followed was, in my opinion, the result of that Prescott ruling.
CVT thought they had definitely had 'friends in high places' without realising that the Government Planning Inspectorate couldn't be swayed by politicians and would decide purely on the facts as they saw them.
Well Prescott certainly muddied the waters!
If I recall correctly, Coventry built the 'temporary" one million passenger terminal without planning permission and Warwickshire C.C said it had to come down. Prescott intervened, probably at the request of Bob Ainsworth the Coventry Labour MP, and ruled that Warwick C.C were absolutely correct the Terminal was illegal, but then said the Terminal could stay anyway - which was a typical Prescott action.
Everything that followed was, in my opinion, the result of that Prescott ruling.
CVT thought they had definitely had 'friends in high places' without realising that the Government Planning Inspectorate couldn't be swayed by politicians and would decide purely on the facts as they saw them.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alvchurch
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought planning permission had been granted (for a 1 mill. pax. terminal) years ago and renewed as and when required. I also believe that in recent years it was renewed with the proviso that when it eventually got built it would be 'on the other side' ie where it is now, rather than where the old terminal stood.
I thought The problem surfaced when a new application was made to up the pax. numbers? for the original Terminal. Maybe,: that because it was about to become reality the NIMBY's kicked up!
The Terminal as it stands now is portable anyway and was a short term necessity whilst the application went thro'.
These are just my understandings of the situation?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought planning permission had been granted (for a 1 mill. pax. terminal) years ago and renewed as and when required. I also believe that in recent years it was renewed with the proviso that when it eventually got built it would be 'on the other side' ie where it is now, rather than where the old terminal stood.
I thought The problem surfaced when a new application was made to up the pax. numbers? for the original Terminal. Maybe,: that because it was about to become reality the NIMBY's kicked up!
The Terminal as it stands now is portable anyway and was a short term necessity whilst the application went thro'.
These are just my understandings of the situation?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was outline planning permission for years, but the owners (Atlantic) didn't renew it as they had done in the past - instead they put in a new application for a new terminal which was refused. They then used "Permitted" development rights to build a temporary terminal, which was ruled as being larger than the permitted size under these "permitted" development rules...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coventry
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbottle
Hi
You have probably researched the facts with regard to the existing & past planning permission's etc etc since I last posted my asumptions.
My only observation would be, is that 'Atlantic' have never applied for planning permission for the terminal at any time. So maybe your assumption's agree with mine....
You have probably researched the facts with regard to the existing & past planning permission's etc etc since I last posted my asumptions.
My only observation would be, is that 'Atlantic' have never applied for planning permission for the terminal at any time. So maybe your assumption's agree with mine....
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not making assumptions - the outline permission is a well known fact, and it's also a well known fact that it was allowed to lapse prior to someone (Who it was I don't care) applying for permission for a "proper" terminal.