Welcome to the site for the protest against the expansion of Coventry Airport
THE FACTS
MAY 08: WE SEEM TO BE WINNING. I HEAR PERSISTENT RUMOURS THAT THE AIRPORT IS ABOUT TO CLOSE. THIS WAS NOT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE BUT EXPANSION NOW SEEMS VERY UNLIKELY WITH THE OIL PRICE NEAR 140 DOLLARS.
See our BRILLIANT second site www.caeca.co.uk. Masses of news, facts and other information.
Please contact Craig Greenway mailto:craiggreenway@tiscali.co.uk or Archy Muir 024 7641 6609.
To complain about the noise phone WDC on 01926 456720. Don't bother complaining to the airport because they don't even record the number of complaints any more.
GREAT NEWS - THEY HAVE LOST THEIR APPEAL. BUT DON'T EXPECT THEM TO GIVE UP - THEY ARE JUST CALLING THIS A "TEMPORARY SETBACK" SO THEY WILL PROBABLY TRY TO GRADUALLY EXPAND THE CURRENT FACILITY (WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE TEMPORARY)
IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN THIS TO GET THEM TO MOVE ALL THE PASSENGER FLIGHTS BACK TO BIRMINGHAM BUT IF WE KEEP WORKING AT IT WE SHALL GET THERE IN THE END.
Why is it that everybody has such a cynical attitude to Binley Woods? See 1,2 and 3 below.
1. When the Rugby airport proposal was being considered the protesters spun a totally impossible scenario that the runway could be turned at right angles to run East-West (which would have needed a ski-jump at the end of the runway to get up Brandon hill). This was promoted in the press etc. to get us to protest against a scheme which would not have affected us at all. The result of our protests was that we got Coventry airport expansion all over our village.
2. November 05. Thanks a lot Rugby District Council. You have taken the easy cheap option and accepted the useless mitigation package because it does not affect Rugby itself. We helped to oppose your airport but now it is your turn to help the villages in the west side of the district you have dumped us. Note that this package has now been dismissed as inadequate by the ministry when they dismissed the appeal.
3. May 07 Now Coventry City have got the airport they wanted they are going to dump the flight paths on Binley Woods so their own residents can have peace and quiet. The new flight paths which are being tested will cause enormous blight to our village while the people who supported the airport get nothing. The flight paths should turn WEST after take off so the residents of Coventry get the blight from THEIR airport. This trial is cynically being carried out to try to get minimal public response while there are very few flights. Our calculations of the figures show that IF a new terminal opens we shall get over 250 flights per day but by the time this happens they will say "nobody complained during the trial so you have got to live with it". The airport noise monitoring is in the City so it will record less noise and nobody will even record (or care) how bad it is here.
To complain about the noise follow this link http://www.coventryairport.co.uk/downloads/noise_complaint_form.doc but don't expect the airport management to take much notice. They will just minute your complaint as "dealt with" and do nothing.
More news with links THE BIG THREAT TO OUR WILD BIRDS Petition for ban on night flights
ON OTHER PAGES OF THIS SITE
(for sample letters and addresses go to the bottom of the page click here )
NEWS Our calculations of the figures Why the mitigation proposed by Air Atlantique would be useless The economic facts
The track record of the airport on existing planning agreements Read our leaflet first Which areas would be affected?
response to a critic The response from Stretton Detailed report VILLAGE NOTICE Poster from Bubbenhall
ON THIS PAGE
Coventry City Council Policy THE WHITE PAPER IS GOOD NEWS The different plans The "Air Atlantique Deal"
The planning process We opposed both Coventry and Rugby airports equally The planes will fly all day and all night
The economic damage Why Coventry Airport is a very bad location for expansion
What happened to Coventry-Airport.com Noise from Jets Air Atlantique losses Safety What you can do about it
LINKS TO OTHER SITES
Coventry LibDems Warwick District Council The Government Airport Consultation
airportwatch uk Recent Articles in Coventry Evening Telegraph Brandon village protest
Stretton on Dunsmore protest Wolverhampton airport action group Birmingham airport protest
Opposition Groups: THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST EXPANSION AT COVENTRY AIRPORT, Baginton Residents Airport Action Group, Bubbenhall Airport Action Group, Coventry and Warwickshire Airport Action Group
Contact us: comments on this site mailto:claisse@hotmail.co.uk or to join or email list mailto:craiggreenway@tiscali.co.uk
COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL POLICY Back to top of page
The following Notice of Motion was passed by Coventry City Council on 24/10/2002:
"The City Council believes that the interests of Coventry, the sub-region and the West Midlands region, are best served in terms of the future development of air services by supporting the progressive development of Birmingham International Airport, and the continued use of Coventry Airport as a major freight hub serving the Midlands, subject to requirements for the mitigation of environmental, ecological and health consequences and proposals for the proper compensation for blight, on the basis that:-
(a) Its development accords with the thrust of the Draft Regional Planning Guidance and Regional Economic Strategy in supporting the regeneration of the conurbation;
(b) It maximises the opportunities for an integrated transportation hub and interchange of airport, mainline rail, road and metro to serve the region;
(c) It maximises the economic benefits of the airport, International Rail Station and National Exhibition Centre as a major regional economic driver.
Since this is their stated policy why do they not support us more openly? Is it because the terms of the airport lease prevent them from protecting the City environment?
ANALYSIS OF THE WHITE PAPER Back to top of page
December 2003: The White paper is unexpected GOOD NEWS. Many thanks to everybody who wrote in to oppose expansion
Page 6 of the summary states that development at Coventry is a matter for local determination - so the planning application can be REFUSED
Section 9.31 of the report says that due to environmental and airspace constraints even if the current application is approved "we would not envisage any significant further development being appropriate beyond the level of passenger throughput in the current application" so they cannot extend the runway or go for the long term increase in freight that they have threatened if they take any notice of the White Paper..
Page 3 of the summary suggests "making more use of noise-related landing charges and using the money to reduce the effects of noise". We suggest that Warwick District Council should do this and use the money to install state-of-the-art noise monitoring in all of the local residential areas and use the information from it to set landing charges for each flight. This is done at Birmingham Airport. Also see for example: London City Airport Noise Monitoring Monitoring at Strasbourg (click environment) A supplier of the systems
Section 3.6 of the report states that "Local controls should operate... to manage the environmental impact of aviation and airport development so that noise impacts are limited and where possible reduced over time." Major reductions at Coventry are quite possible by using better flight paths that avoid the villages and using quieter aircraft Section 3.7 refers to "applying increasingly stringent technical standards to limit emissions and noise at source." There is good scope for this at Coventry. Section 3.7 also refers to "the withdrawal of the noisiest and dirtiest aircraft and replacing them with aircraft capable of better environmental performance" There is certainly scope for this at Coventry and WDC should insist on it
The different plans Back to top of page Our calculations of the figures
The current planning application is for a terminal with two gates which could serve up to 20 flights per day (2-3 million passengers per year). The leaflet is about this.
The plans described in the consultation document are for "full use" of the runway. This would be for over 120 flights departing per day (10-15 million passengers per year) in addition to existing freight. This would need the runway extended and they have already bought the land for the extension. The scheme was described in detail in the Coventry Evening Telegraph last year and would result in an airport the size of Luton. The comparison is about this scheme. If planning permission is granted now for the initial phase the full expansion would be expected to take place within 10 years. It is not envisaged in the White Paper but neither were night passenger flights. THIS IS THE SCHEME IN THE 2004 MEGA-APPLICATION.
The "Air Atlantiqe Deal" Back to top of page
Air Atlantiqe are offering what may be described as a "deal" or a "threat" to restrict freight if the terminal is built but to increase it if the terminal is not built. We suggest that this deal is a very bad idea.
The deal comes in two parts:
1. If the terminal is built they suggest that freight expansion will be limited by lack of space. There is no evidence for this - more freight aircraft could be served from the existing buildings or from the nearby industrial estate. They have bought a lot more land, including a farm, so they are not short of space.
2. They also offer an "agreement". Enforcing this would be impossible. If anybody did stay up all night for months to count the aircraft to prove that the deal had been broken they would probably have it rejected by the courts like the one at Gatwick. see their track record
Freight will be limited by Coventry's inability to compete with East Midlands and the expected EU limits on night time noise. They have only grown their freight by 10% in the last 10 years so claiming that they will double it in the next 5 is not credible.
The Planning Process Back to top of page
In autumn 2002 there was an attempt to extend a very old approval to build the terminal. 700 letters of protest were sent in and the attempt failed. The current planning application is a complete new start. Note that this is quite separate from the Government consultation. Note that the current enforcement action is not related to the planning application - they are going ahead without any planning permission.
We opposed both Coventry and Rugby airports equally Back to top of page
The noise from the two airport schemes would have affected different areas with little overlap. See the comparison to see which one would have been worse for you. The pollution and development from either scheme would affect all areas.
SACRIFICING LARGE AREAS ON THE EAST SIDE OF COVENTRY WAS NEVER THE WAY TO STOP RUGBY AIRPORT . THE SOLUTION IS TO TAX AIR TRANSPORT EQUALLY.
The planes fly all day and all night. Back to top of page
Coventry airport has an unrestricted 24-hour license for the light aircraft on the Parcelforce contract.
This is very unusual, most airports (including Heathrow) cannot fly planes at night.
Coventry will attract all of the flights which, for any reason, have to fly at night.
Note that the decision to grant permission for 24-hour flying rests with WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL.
The economic damage. Back to top of page
We support the creation of jobs in this area but Coventry airport will NOT do this - it will simply move them 10 miles to an airport with poor public transport for employees and damage the prospects for creating a more efficient and competitive hub and interchange at Birmingham.
The economic myth about air travel Aviation fuel is currently tax free. A worldwide tax of just 20p per litre could raise billions to help the poor.
If the new terminal is built the noise from the aircraft from Coventry would take several hundred million ponds off the value of property under the flight path.
The transport system would grind to a halt causing major losses to local businesses.
This money taken out of the local economy would far outweigh any gain from locating a few unskilled jobs at the airport rather than at Birmingham.
Development would stop. Businesses would fail. Jobs would be lost. Air Atlantique claim that a "property hot spot" would be created - they need to look at the catastrophic effect at the Rugby airport site to find out the real facts!
Why Coventry Airport is a very bad location for expansion Back to top of page
Transport links --- Have you ever been to Tolbar island in the rush hour? Need we say more? If the island is replaced with an underpass this will simply spread the chaos (this is now scheduled for 2009). The Binley Woods island will become a nightmare. There is no rail link.
Flight path. -- This goes over a very highly populated area. It affects a far greater population than would have been affected by the proposed Rugby airport. The planes also have to fly low (and make more noise) to remain under the Birmingham flight paths.
Air Space -- Because the airport is almost under the Birmingham flight path they only have traffic control over a 2 mile radius. This means that they cannot enforce flight paths and the noise contours in their environmental impact analysis are highly optimistic.
The site is too small.-- This means that by the time safety zones have been included at each end the runway is barely long enough. This is very important with the big roundabout at one end. This means that planes with a larger fuel load to go further (e.g. to Malaga) cannot take a full load of passengers. They will make just as much pollution and more noise (because they will fly lower) but not carry as many people as they could from Birmingham.
Local environment --- There are 5 sites of special scientific interest near the airport and, in particular, a bird sanctuary with a large population of herons very near the end of the runway. The introduction of regular flights with jet aircraft will mean that the herons will have to be kept well away to avoid bird strikes.
What Happened to Coventry-Airport.com? Back to top of page
While claiming to support "full and open discussion" Air Atlantique persuaded the free-server to close down our site at Coventry-Airport.com. They did not complain about validity of the content - they complained about the use of the name - we strongly dispute their legal right to do this but lack the resources to challenge it.
The noise from Jets. Back to top of page
Air Atlantique make the strange claim that jets are quieter than propeller aircraft. This is not generally true. They are currently using very old and noisy propeller aircraft and some types of new jets are quieter but the solution is for them to move to socially acceptable new propeller aircraft. Now the flights have started it is quite obvious that their claim was as much rubbish as we always said it was.
Airport Losses. Back to top of page
Air Atlantique are apparently losing money and claim that this gives the right to ruin our quality of life to save their company. We obviously dispute this.
Safety Back to top of page
A few years ago a big jet crashed near houses when trying to land at Coventry (the "veal calf" episode). They have made relatively few landings with big jets since. Now they plan hundreds..... After just a few weeks of flying they have already had at least one near miss
Because the Coventry flight path runs across the flight path from Birmingham a considerable hazard will be created if Coventry expands or Birmingham expands and Coventry does not reduce operations.
There are also allegations that the aircraft fly so low in order to drop drugs.
What you can do about it. Back to top of page
1. Email us so we can send you updates mailto:craiggreenway@tiscali.co.uk
2. Send letters Who to send letters to
Samples (only use these samples for ideas - obviously don't just print them and send them) technical letter Sample letter 1 letter 2 letter 4 Letter re noise mitigation letter 3 more letters
3. Offer to help. We need help keeping our email lists up to date and sending out news letters etc. Please contact us.
Hits since 20 Dec 2003