Coventry Terminal Application refused (merged)

[jabird]

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.

[niknak]

Not entirely suprising, given the total ignorance of the small minded cretins who sit on the council commtiees in Warkckshire.:rolleyes:

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.

[Daysleeper]

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.

[BE happy]

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

[twostroke]

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.

[Arbottle]

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.

[Yorky Towers]

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 :ok:

Regards Yorky

Highways Agency reference No. HA/001/018/000045
This is for the A45/A46 Toll Bar End improvements.

[arthur harbrow]

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.

[jmc757]

" 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?!

[twostroke]

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 (http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=14635538&method=full&siteid=50003&headline=council-blocks-airport-expansion-name_page.html)

[warkman]

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......

[Yorky Towers]

At least now by going to appeal:
"the application will be heard by an independent professional planning inspector.”

Yorky

[BE happy]

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

[Arbottle]

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!).

[alterego]

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.

[Arbottle]

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.

[jabird]

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

[jmc757]

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.

[Arbottle]

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!

[jabird]

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.

[Arbottle]

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.)

[CCFC]

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

[niknak]

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.

[jabird]

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.

[jabird]

http://www.leamingtononline.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=691&ArticleID=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?

[ALLMCC]

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!

[jabird]

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!).

[Milt]

Scatter the airfield with 'air pockets' liberally laced with a few
'go arounds' and the media types will go ballistic.

[Arbottle]

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.

[thoma-hawk]

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).

[warkman]

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. ;)

[Say again s l o w l y]

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.

[thoma-hawk]

Warkman

Thank-you for demonstrating my point.

[Caslance]

Where do you go for your holidays, thoma-hawk?

How do you get there?

[Flytest]

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.

:confused:

[Arbottle]

Don't understand what you mean there - Coventry has attracted huge investment in the last 10+ years and has a much more diverse local economy than the 80s and 90s.

[Daysleeper]

And most of that huge investment was in one factory that is about to close. So with the cat shot I guess the airport is about all thats expanding in cov these days.

[Flytest]

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.:ok: